https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/bailiff-reform/our-campaign.aspx

Back in May, National Debtline launched a campaign for a reform of enforcement practices.

Perhaps we should encourage people to take part in this excercise that ND are organising.

EC's do need to be properly regulated.

Wont happen. They were already reformed... to the favour of the bailiffs. Mainly because the government has a lot of donators that invest heavily in baliff companies. Capita for example.

Have to agree with renegadeimp, bailiffs and Enforcement should be abolished but Capita has too many fingers in public pies to the detriment of the common good. Capita should be dismantled or wound up.

Have to agree with renegadeimp, bailiffs and Enforcement should be abolished but Capita has too many fingers in public pies to the detriment of the common good. Capita should be dismantled or wound up.

It is the same with any other issue. If the public and media become interested enough, then politicians become interested.

As an example, due to the number of student votes Labour got at the last election, the Tory Government is looking at reducing student fees. People need to take part in campaigns, if they want to see change.

Some people of course might not want to see such changes to the enforcement industry. Could you imagine want would happen to fee based bailiff assistance type companies, if the enforcement industry were strictly regulated with a proper complaints process in place ? At the moment, the taking control of goods law creates enough work due to its lack of clarity and it is not subject to enough regulation so EA's perform their work in a creative way to obtain money.

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/bailiff-reform/our-campaign.aspx

 

Back in May, National Debtline launched a campaign for a reform of enforcement practices.

 

Perhaps we should encourage people to take part in this excercise that ND are organising.

 

EC's do need to be properly regulated.

An excellent thread UB.

There have been a few meetings since this campaign was introduced and at the last one, I commented that I had thorughly read through each of the comments made by members of the public and that far from being 'complaints', the vast majority of comments had arisen because of misinformation being given to the public regarding the rights of bailiffs and the fee structure (and much more). One example being internet advice informing debtors to avoid paying bailiff fees by paying the local authority direct.

Will there be an independent regulator for the bailiff industry?

This is a subject that in fact led to Part 3 of the Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 failing to be implemented until April 2014. The current position, is that a few weeks ago a formal letter was sent to the Minister requesting that he revisit this subject. That letter has been endorsed by enforcement companies and representatives of the 'advice sector'. I provided an endorsement on behalf of my business.

I hope to be in a position to provide an update on the regulations by the middle of the week.

However, to an extent the regulations are working, there is no doubt

You only have to look at the number of complaints we see on here and compare it to even last year to see this, it is the same across the advice sector. As for a regulator, the same questions always arise, firstly who is the right person for the job, and how would such a body be funded.

Many bailiffs would welcome a regulator as regulation can work both ways. A quick way to settle disputes would be in their interests also. Cutting out costly and ineffective legal actions would be a benefit to everyone except the legal and quasi-legal industries

I think it's a tad unrealistic to suggest that it took seven years to determine whether an independent regulator should be engaged or not. It is also worth noting that the four relevant SIs were not introduced until 2013 and 2014 which suggests (to me anyway) that they were rushed through.

You need to pay attention to what is written as I had not suggested for one moment that it took 7 years to determine whether an independent regulator should be engaged or not.

As to your suggestion that the four supporting statutory instruments had been 'rushed thorough', you are wrong here as well. There had been many stakeholder meetings and discussions over a long period of time before the SI's were introduced. I will be the first to admit that there were some surprises that we had not known about until a very late stage (the removal of the '14 day' letter for council tax arrears being one).

Interesting comment about forced entry to a private residential address regarding a business debt. I did not think forced entry was possible to a private address regarding a business debt, unless EA's had reasonable evidence that business assets were held at the address. Simply having a correspondence address linked to a private address would not be enough.

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/bailiff-reform/our-campaign.aspx

 

Back in May, National Debtline launched a campaign for a reform of enforcement practices.

 

Perhaps we should encourage people to take part in this excercise that ND are organising.

 

EC's do need to be properly regulated.

John Kruse is also campaigning for amendments to be made to the regulations. A link to his paper is below:

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

I will be meeting up with JK at the end of next week and I look forward to hearing his presentation.

There were a number of reasons why part three was not brought into force in 2007, discussion regarding a regulator and bailiffs rights of entry being the two major ones. Then there was the definition of costs, in fact, everything we see mentioned in the regulations.

There was also much discussion on who to appoint as a regulator, many wanted to be considered for the job I seem to remember even Civea threw their hats into the ring, BPA, the SIA, in fact, most of the alphabet.

The problem was that the ones who wanted the position were also the ones who should not have it, and the ones who should have it did not want it. I should imagine it is the same today.

UB you are correct and as you say, the exception is if goods have been removed to the address.

 

In the absence of a structured complaints procedure, there certainly needs to be clearer information regarding complaints about a bailiffs fitness to hold a certificate.

 

Complainants need to be made aware that by going down this road, they are entering a legal process that could result in a costs order being made if the complaint fails. Many people are still starting this procedure, firstly not knowing that it is not a normal complaint procedure but a procedure for the 0.5% of the most serious cases and secondly that there is a great danger of costs being awarded against the complainant. It is very unclear.

I'm afraid that you are wrong here as well. Without exception, unless a debtor carries out an internet search they will not be aware that they can take a complaint (about a bailiff) to the County Court for consideration to be given to removing his certificate.

Just carry out a simple Google search (Complaining about a bailiff) and with only one exception, the advice that is given is that a complaint to the court should be a last resort and before even taking such a step, the complaint should go to the enforcement company. My own website makes very clear the risk of a cost order being imposed.

Returning now to the 'one exception'. That particular website states the following about making a complaint about a bailiff to the court:

There is no fee, it only takes a few minutes and you don't even have to go to Court!

 

Grounds for a complaint include;

 

Malicious behaviour, e.g. threatening to call 'social services' or a 'locksmith'

 

If the judge adjourns and tells you and the bailiff to leave the court and agree a conclusion to your complaint, then agree to take a sum between £750 and £10,000 off the bailiff in return for discontinuing your complaint.

Anyone taking the above advice is given the impression that if a bailiff states that he is going to call a locksmith, that they can make a complaint to the court, not expect to have to attend a hearing and could expect to receive 'compensation' of between £750 and £10,000. They are also not being told that a cost order could be imposed against them

Here's the important part. That website owner refers to you as his 'colleague' (Oxford English Dictionary definition: 'a person with whom one works in a profession or business'.) If you really had the debtors interest at heart, then surely you could suggest that the information provided above be immediately amended.

Not sure we want to get into a debate about bailiff advice type sites. I would regulate them as well, if they charge any fees.

Well said. It gets rather boring after the 555th time that BA refers to a"particular website "

 

She may wish to revisit her own site first. A complaint to court should never be "a last resort " that is lunacy.

 

If a complaint would is serious enough then it should be a first resort. In all other cases, it should not be a resort at all and most certainly shouldn't be a last resort. How reckless can you get?

Each case on its own merits. Makes my blood boil when i see programmes on CH5 showing bullying tactics of EA's. Should not be allowed. There should be a set way that EA's have to conduct themselves. Anybody subject to enforcement actions should be sent an official Government leaflet explaining in full everything they need to know. If the NOE is not sent recorded delivery, there should be someway of evidencing proof of postage, given the extra cost of an enforcement visit.

I think most judges would expect other remedies to be sought before court action, it is commonly held that going to law should always be the last resort.

If an ex-parte application is required then this does not apply, but this is not an applicable remedy in most cases and can have enormous costs implications if wrongly brought.

I doubt any serious advice service would say that going to court was an appropriate first action

I think the first resort would be to complain to the bailiff, wouldn't it?

CPR is only when an action is being considered as i am sure you know

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/action-your-creditor-can-take/bailiffs/complaining-about-bailiffs/how-to-complain-about-bailiffs/

Step one: complain to the bailiff firm

If you want to make a complaint about a bailiff's actions or behaviour, you should complain to the bailiff firm in the first instance. You should do this in writing

In all these situations, it's a good idea to complain to the bailiff's firm and your creditor directly before you decide to take court action. Complaining directly can often be a quicker, cheaper and easier way of solving a problem than going to court. If you complain to your creditor, they may agree to stop the bailiff action.

I think that most would consider the CAB to be"serious advisers."

 

I personally do not recommend a complaint to court in any circumstance, especially not as a last resort. The complainant has nothing to gain by doing so and a lot to lose.

 

There is mass confusion regarding complaining about bailiffs and even Citizens Advice have it wrong.

There is certainly confusion all right and I would say that your posts on this thread today are only adding to the confusion!!!

For example, you above post is seriously at odds with your earlier comment from this morning where you stated as follows:

A complaint to court should never be "a last resort " that is lunacy.

 

If a complaint would is serious enough then it should be a first resort.

 

In all other cases, it should not be a resort at all and most certainly shouldn't be a last resort.

The Citizens Advice information is misleading and I say that as someone who worked passionately as an adviser at Citizens Advice until fairly recently. It highlights my point and the concerns that I have raised.

 

People are confused into thinking that a complaint to court is the same as any other complaint (I used the example of a complaint to the IPCC yesterday)

 

A complaint to the court is a Complaint as to fitness to hold a certificate It is not a complaint that will end with the bailiff getting a slap on the wrist or being ordered to go and stand in the corner with a dunces cap on for an hour.

 

A complaint about fitness to hold a certificate is an entirely different kettle of fish to a complaint to his employer or the creditor about procedural errors. For example, if a bailiff were to divulge a debtors personal data and information about his/her case to a third party, then a complaint to the employer or creditor would be a suitable course of action. You certainly wouldn't then go to court "as a last resort" if your complaint got nowhere with the creditor or agency.

 

I have had the misfortune of seeing the aftermath of people who have failed in complaints to court. At no time did any of them realise that they were entering into a legal process and exposing themselves to a potential costs order. All said that they would not have gone down that road had they been fully aware of the consequences. Why anyone would want to risk this course of action when the reward is so minimal is beyond me. It should further be noted that to deprive a man or a woman of the ability to earn a living by taking his/her certificate away, is a very big step to make and it would not be made lightly. In my experience I am only aware of one case where a certificate was revoked and even then, it was only done so on a temporary basis.

 

I personally do not recommend a complaint to court in any circumstance, especially not as a last resort. The complainant has nothing to gain by doing so and a lot to lose.

 

There is mass confusion regarding complaining about bailiffs and even Citizens Advice have it wrong. I believe that the word "complaint" should be removed from the title and it should be renamed "Application to determine fitness to hold a certificate" or words to that effect. Using the word "complaint is misleading and is often wasting a lot of court time on top of the costs orders that people are being hit with.

Yes, but despite "war and peace" here, taking action in court should always be the last option As confirmed by all reputable advice agencies.

I really don't know who mentioned EAC2 claims, but those are for very sere breaches by a bailiff, most claims will be under section 66( breach of the act), or common law.

I think you are stretching now

Anyway, i think any consultation or examination is useful and worthwhile, the law is an evolving thing and should always have the needs of the public as its primary concern.

It is always useful for people to get involved and let the authorities know what they think.

Thank you for providing the link to John Kruse's ideas on Bailiff reform Bailiff Advice.

There isn't anything to disagree with unsurprisingly. The one thing that I would like to see is that the £235 is only chargeable when goods are taken under control in accordance with the regulations and not just for the delivery of a letter which I think is a grotesque overcharge. Especially as I understand it, some bailiffs are not above doing a recce first to ensure the alleged debtor is not in their property to avoid any risk of

a TOGC. It may be one of the things JK is alluding too when he said he wanted to restructure bailiff fees so as to incentivise good practice but I thought I would put it in for clarification.

As an aside, it would be interesting to know if the Capita infested Councils are sending in bailiffs more often than other Councils..................I don't suppose there is any way of checking?

Rather than have one general enforcement law setting out fees, i think they should have different fees depending on what the enforcement issue is. I would not have the same fees in regarding to council tax and say PCN's.

And there should be a better process followed before enforcement is started. Government should try to educate the public more and hopefully reduce the need for enforcement, restricting it to bl**dy minded people who won't pay or even enter into any communications/appeals. There is too much enforcement activity going on.

 

2. Taking legal action should be a last resort in most scenarios but in the case of an EAC2, court is the ONLY option.

 

/QUOTE]

 

Earlier you said

 

"A complaint to court should never be "a last resort " that is lunacy"

Thank you for providing the link to John Kruse's ideas on Bailiff reform Bailiff Advice.

 

There isn't anything to disagree with unsurprisingly. The one thing that I would like to see is that the £235 is only chargeable when goods are taken under control in accordance with the regulations and not just for the delivery of a letter which I think is a grotesque overcharge. Especially as I understand it, some bailiffs are not above doing a recce first to ensure the alleged debtor is not in their property to avoid any risk of a TOGC. It may be one of the things JK is alluding too when he said he wanted to restructure bailiff fees so as to incentivise good practice but I thought I would put it in for clarification.

If you look back at the Consultation paper from Feb 2012, it provided the in dept analysis that had been carried out by an economist in 2009 into the fee scale and the eventual figure in the 2014 fees regulations, is almost the same as recommended by him at that time. Given the huge amount of work that been given to setting the fee scale I cannot see that there is to be any change on this point (apart from a fee increase).

There has been a lot of pressure from enforcement companies for the fees to be increased and in fact, this was a government pledge in 2014 which has not happened yet. My personal opinion is that if fees are to rise, I would prefer that any rise is only given to the Compliance fee and not the enforcement fee. In that way, more investment could be given to telephone support and setting up payment arrangements and Welfare Departments and this may hopefully reduce the need for enforcement companies to push accounts towards an enforcement visit (and thereby benefit from the £235 enforcement fee). Unfortunately, as in all things, there are pro's and con's with my preffered suggestion wth many enforcement companies preferring any increase to be applied to the enforcement stage fee (and not the compliance fee).

The High Court enforcement industry is well aware that their fees scale needs to be seriously reviewed and it is hoped that steps are taken shortly in this respect.

 

The High Court enforcement industry is well aware that their fees scale needs to be seriously reviewed and it is hoped that steps are taken shortly in this respect.

The enforcement industry is very keen to get support from the government to allow them to enforce low value judgments (under £600) but it is well known that the advice sector will not support such a plan unless the fee scale for HCEO enforcement is reviewed. Having taken part in the entire consultation and fee charging regulations etc for over 10 years, I have learnt that it can take a very long time to get changes introduced. Patience is a requirement.

I am looking forward to hearing MOJ's presentation this week on the regulations, and next week; John Kruse's speech on his Bailiff Reform paper. Hopefully, I will have some good news to report.

As it stands HCEO enforcement of low value could turn a £100 debt into potentially £3,000 by the time the HCEO has finished.