Lets ask Chief constables their Baliff policies.

[MARTIN3030]

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709:

[ScarletPimpernel]

Although I now live in Northern Ireland, where there are no bailiffs, can I suggest that another way to tackle this important question would be via constituency MPs.

 

I have some experience of dealing with parliamentarians and have found that the best approach is to do most of the work for them, and then get them to ask the relevant Minister a question. It's no good writing direct to Ministers - the question has to come through your MP (if you need to check who it is, go to TheyWorkForYou.com: Are your MPs and Peers working for you in the UK's Parliament?).

 

I'd suggest something along these lines:

 

You may have seen the recent reports in the media about the way in which some police forces appear to be wrongly assisting bailiffs who are themselves acting outside the law. The incidents reported are by no means isolated - there are many similar stories on consumer websites.

 

I am sure you will agree that it is inappropriate for the police to assist bailiffs in this way.

 

I would be most grateful if you would ask the Home Secretary, Jacqui Spliff, what efforts her Department is making to ensure that police officers in England and Wales, and particularly in (your county), are up to date with the relevant legislation, and trained to deal correctly in these matters.

 

Secondly, whilst I am aware that there is impending new legislation which should simplify the way bailiffs work, could you ask the Secretary of State for Justice what action his department intends to take against bailiffs who continue to act improperly in the meantime.

 

Yours etc.

 

Note that you should always write your own letter - MPs won't usually respond to template letters. If your MP is Labour, enclosing yourletter in a plain brown envelope with 'Donation enclosed' should guarantee his attention!

 

You should receive an acknowledgement from your MP, and then a copy of their letter to the Minister, and copy of the reply.

[The Watcher]

Thanks for this Scarlet Pimpernel ... but we did conduct a campaign with MPs when the new Bill was being drafted, and despite some strong support (eg Austin Mitchell, whose own daughter had just had a bailiff experience !!!) the government whips managed to slap everybody down and force through their legislation.

 

I agree that contacting MPs may be a good idea at a later stages (as Chief Constables don't like getting negative publicity) but feel that actually finding what Chief Constables actually think / believe is essential BEFORE complaining about them !

 

Can you enlighten me as to the situation in N Ireland - re no bailiffs?

[The Watcher]

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744) in An Essay on Criticism, 1709:

 

Thanks Martin - I wonder if he had been having bailiff problems too (lol) ?

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

Can you enlighten me as to the situation in N Ireland - re no bailiffs?

 

Bailiffs used to operate in Northern Ireland, but for obvious reasons it became dangerous for them to operate - the people they came to intimidate often turned out to be rather more intimidating, and better armed.

 

All bailiff duties are now carried out by the Enforcement of Judgments Office of the NI Court Service. They operate to strict standards and seem to have a good reputation.

[GodI'mfedup]

Sounds like the makings of a plan to me

[MARTIN3030]

Actually Enforcement officers are a good option for claimants who have got judgements.

1.They do not inform the banks before going in.

2.They work outside the 9-5 weekday hours of court baliffs

3.They will make multiple visits even outside the claimants area.

4.They are allowed to make forced entries into commercial properties.

5.They recover their costs/fees those they collect from.

 

Its a very strange scenario.....I have obtained 3 judgements amongst my bank claims only to see County court baliffs act too slowly and allow the banks time to have judgement set aside.I was only made aware later of enforcement officers and for 80 quid (which you get back )....could have already had 3 settled claims by now.

It does not mean that I am anymore baliff friendly....but that there can be recourse to redress the balance....against those who use private baliff firms .

[chris600uk]

Well folks I'm off to Spain for a week so I'll catch up with you when I get back. I'll have to do my letter then, assuming that is that the template is ready by then.

 

Chris.

[MARTIN3030]

have a good time.

Hopefully the temp letter will be ready yes.

 

 

Heres a question to ask the hotel to make sure you enjoy your stay.

 

"Espero que no haya ningunos baliffs aquí." - lol.

[The Watcher]

Bailiffs used to operate in Northern Ireland, but for obvious reasons it became dangerous for them to operate - the people they came to intimidate often turned out to be rather more intimidating, and better armed.

 

All bailiff duties are now carried out by the Enforcement of Judgments Office of the NI Court Service. They operate to strict standards and seem to have a good reputation.

 

Ahh ! Pretty obvious really. I should have worked that out for myself ! I can see a similar situation arising here too - when people start standing up for their rights and refuse to be intimidated.

[tonycee]

I can see a similar situation arising here too - when people start standing up for their rights and refuse to be intimidated.

 

And i hope that campaign goes way beyond just bailiffs.

[DCA-KING]

Il do all of wales its only 4 mind you north wales CC is a bit of a numpty

so anyone got a template letter to send them

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks.

Another 16 force areas to be sorted yet.

Does anyone have a link or info regarding the Devon and Cornwall policy ?

Also I realise that there may be people who want to contribute here but for various reasons do not want to openly post.Feel free to email me- any input will be incorporated in the campaign.

[The Watcher]

Thanks.

Another 16 force areas to be sorted yet.

Does anyone have a link or info regarding the Devon and Cornwall policy ?

Also I realise that there may be people who want to contribute here but for various reasons do not want to openly post.Feel free to email me- any input will be incorporated in the campaign.

 

The Devon / Cornwall policy document is here, Martin -

 

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/pdfstore/CJU_D222.pdf

 

Do we need to wait till we have EVERY police area covered? Should we go ahead when we have the majority? We can "pick off" the others later?

[MARTIN3030]

Yes fine by me.

Ok lets look at the temp letter.Some ideas for inclusion ?

And whats the consensus as to whether it should be disclosed as to the nature of the approach ?

[tomtubby]

I received an "experts view" on this document a few months ago that I will try to find on my computer that is in a lots of ways critical of this document.

[The Watcher]

I received an "experts view" on this document a few months ago that I will try to find on my computer that is in a lots of ways critical of this document.

 

I agree - it's not perfect - but its a big advance on where we are now !

 

At least it focuses the police minds on the fact that the debtor has SOME rights !

 

If we can at least get Chief Constables talking about the subject - and looking at the law - then we will be making progress ?

 

tomtubby - WHICH County was it (in your example above) ?

[MARTIN3030]

Am away till Friday with no connectivity where I am going.I will update when I get back.Keep the thoughts coming.

[Recycler]

TomT think this is what you refer to

 

COMMENTS on guidance from the Devon & Cornwall Police by Philip Evans

 

By way of introduction, the guidance from the Devon & Cornwall Police uses obsolete terms - but it’s not just out of date because some of it never was accurate. It’s also badly structured and doesn’t read well so that, as a result, I think it adds to the confusion surrounding bailiff law and practice.

 

Throughout the documents there is a confusion of terms. 3.2 has a fair enough stab at distinguishing between distress and levy but, then, 4.6b introduces seizure without adequate explanation. Throughout the document, no clear distinction is made between distress and execution or between entry and re-entry. Para 4.8.1 refers to entry to domestic premises only, although this isn’t clear; the clarification in 4.8.3b comes too late to avoid confusion.

 

Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to the National Standards for Enforcement Agents!

 

Below I have highlighted just a few of the problems with the guidance.

 

Paras 2.1 & 2.2 aren’t drafted very well. 2.1 explains about fine enforcement and there won’t necessarily be a notice to defaulter in other types of bailiff action. The notice cannot, therefore, be the point of reference claimed in 2.2.

 

Para 3.1 contains technical errors. For example, ‘sheriff’s officer’ should be ‘high court enforcement officer’ and ‘uniform business rate’ should be ‘non-domestic rate’. Further, a certificated bailiff can also enforce council tax and non-domestic rate.

 

In para 4.1, I’m unclear as to the distinction between (b) and ©. In many cases, a bailiff may have just a computer print out. This may be bad law but it’s hardly the bailiff’s fault and if a constable defers enforcement because he or she demands paperwork that doesn’t exist, it just adds needlessly to the costs that the debtor has to pay. Also, to confer with a neighbour risks a breach of data protection legislation.

 

Para 4.5 is incorrect. High court enforcement officers and country court bailiffs can force entry to non-domestic premises. For many years, bailiffs have been able to force entry to any premises to enforce income tax. The Domestic Violence Act 2004 gave bailiffs on fine enforcement discretion to force entry to domestic premises. Bailiffs can force re-entry to any premises to remove or inspect goods previously levied. Much of this is explained further on - but because of the way the document is structured it is just confusing!

 

The reference in para 4.6 to ‘sheriff of the court’ is, I assume, a reference to high court enforcement officers who were previously called sheriff officers. County court bailiffs also have the same power (although they use it rarely). I think it’s quite wrong to say that enquiries should have been made before a forced entry: at the address on the warrant, an outside inspection will often establish whether a bailiff is justified in forcing entry.

 

Still in para 4.6, a district judge has no power to authorise a county court bailiff (or anyone else) to force entry if the bailiff doesn’t have the power in any event. Of course, a judge may prohibit bailiffs at his or her court for forcing entry without specific authority given in advance. That, however, is a matter of administration, not law, and the bailiff may not have a document to prove he has the judge’s permission.

 

I think para 4.6 is also incorrect about forced entry to third party premises. I think it’s the case that any bailiff can force entry to third party premises to levy on goods that have been moved there to avoid enforcement (there may be some case law I’ve overlooked that excludes some bailiffs). Where it can be done, bailiffs have discretion that is limited only by their managers. What people overlook, however, is that this power is very rarely used and when it is used it doesn’t cause a problem.

 

Para 4.7 should include some useful guidance. If necessary, the police should arrest a debtor who breaches the peace because a bailiff is doing what a bailiff is expected to do and doing it correctly and peaceably. (I know this won’t be well received by some debtor groups but the fact is that the law must be upheld: where a debtor in genuine financial difficulty is prejudiced by enforcement action, the court should be asked to halt enforcement.) That said, a bailiff can do his or her job in such a way as to cause offence and so recklessly provoke a violent reaction from a debtor, in which case I think the bailiff should be the one to be arrested.

 

Para 4.8.1 applies only to entry (not re-entry) to domestic premises. When entering through a door, there are other actions permitted; for example, a bailiff can turn a key in a locked door and can remove barricades if they are not fixed. I believe the final sentence is inaccurate: a shed or garage isn’t protected if it’s ‘within the boundary of the premises’, only if it’s physically attached to the premises (in a technical, legal sense, this may be the same thing but the guidance isn't clear).

 

4.9 This is really unhelpful and is a dangerous over-simplification: for example, rent distress can only take place between dawn and dusk. It should contain the sort of guidance given in the National Standards for Enforcement Agents.

 

In summary, let me say that this guidance does a grave disservice to bailiffs, debtors and everyone else involved in enforcement. It’s badly structured, obsolete in places, inaccurate in others - and confusing overall!

 

Philip Evans Civil Enforcement Consultant 14 August 2007

[The Watcher]

In summary, let me say that this guidance does a grave disservice to bailiffs, debtors and everyone else involved in enforcement. It’s badly structured, obsolete in places, inaccurate in others - and confusing overall!

 

So .... what are you saying? That we should let Chief Constables continue to live in complete ignorrance - believing that everything bailiffs tell them is true, and that debtors have no rights at all?

 

I said previously that there were errors in this document - but surely its better that SOMETHING is brought to the CC's attention (and what better than a document produced by ANOTHER police force?) rather than doing nothing at all.

 

At least it will focus attention - and make them realise that if ONE force is attempting to do something, then maybe their OWN force should be doing something as well?

 

PS - The fact that the "expert" (above) finds the situation so confusing only adds to the fact that CC's too, will realise that this is not as simple as they had previously believed.

[Yellow160]

I can do Durham if no one else has offered?

[The Watcher]

I can do Durham if no one else has offered?

 

Durham is still free (a full list is on Page 1) ... Martin (who is compiling) is away till Friday but am sure he'll add you to the list. Thanks.

[The Watcher]

tomtubby - WHICH County was it (in your example above) ?

 

tomtubby -

 

WHY will you NOT answer this question?

[MARTIN3030]

I can do Durham if no one else has offered?

 

Thanks I have added it.

[MARTIN3030]

Just these now remaining.

 

 

Avon and Somerset Constabulary

Cleveland Police now taken;Alphageek vbmenu_register("postmenu_1407647", true);

Dorset Police

Gloucestershire Constabulary

Humberside Police

Kent Police

Leicestershire Constabulary

Norfolk Constabulary

Northamptonshire Police

North Yorkshire Police ..now taken:Alphageek vbmenu_register("postmenu_1407647", true);

Suffolk Constabulary

Warwickshire Police

West Mercia Constabulary

West Yorkshire Police