The SIA is developing training programmes for Bailiffs. The public's view on the proposed specification is requested.

[tomtubby]

The Ministry of Justice have asked the Security Industry Authority (SIA) to introduce a compulsory licensing of enforcement agents ( bailiffs) in England and Wales from 2012.

 

This will mean that from 2012 a bailiff will no longer make an application to the court to become a certificated bailiff and will instead apply for a licence through the SIA.

 

From that date, if there is a complaint from a member of the public they would no longer complete a Form 4 Complaint but instead will make a complaint to a new complaints body. The SIA have made the point very clear to the Ministry of Justice that they will not deal with complaints and the Ministry Justice are undergoing discussions on this matter of a separate complaints body.

 

Under the new licensing regime, the SIA will be developing a compulsory training specification which is intended to ensure that the individual bailiff is capable of performing their duties "in a manner that will not cause harm either to themselves or to any member of the public".

 

The SIA have written to approximately 230 bailiff companies that they have identified seeking their views on the proposal for the following nine training packages:

 

• Introduction to the Enforcement Profession.
  
• The Law and the Enforcement Agent Role.
  
• Taking Control of Goods.
  
• Removal and Sale of Controlled Goods.
  
• Customer Care
  
• Avoiding Conflict and Reducing Risk.
  
• Defusing Conflict.
  
• Resolving Conflict.
  
• Post Incident Consideration and Learning from Conflict.
  

As a business that deals solely in bailiff enquiries from the public, I will be responding to the consultation which ends on Friday 29th of January 2010 and I will be considering any responses that anyone wishes to make on this thread.

 

This is a one off opportunity to have an input into the future training requirements of bailiffs and hopefully for setting a high standard within the enforcment industry. It is therefore very important that you post your suggestions.

 

You can read the full Consulation document here:

 

 

 

www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk/ea-consultation

[PGH7447]

Politeness would be a good start, and not having shaved heads

[comebackjimmy]

I wondered who the SIA were? Here is the answer:

 

Our Mission, Vision and Objectives - Security Industry Authority

 

I personally don't mind if they have shaved heads, but they should live in fear of real CRIMINAL penalties if they act outside the rules (whatever they may be and whomsoever defines them!) from a government body that has real teeth, but that is probably expecting too much.

[cirian75]

SIA has long be proven to be a toothless dog.

[cirian75]

also currently

 

the training needed to done to get a SIA badge for Clamping/Security/doorman/CCTV op is laughable

 

the companys can do it them selves, and then send the "our guys done the course info" to the qualification body, who rubber stamp the cert and that its it.

 

after the basic criminal record check, you have you licence.

 

It needs to done by a proper third party, and it needs to be harder, much much harder.

[hallowitch]

I Think that all complaints regarding bailiffs fees unlawful Levy's etc should be directed to the council and if any complaints are upheld on more that 3 occasions they should then have all there cases looked at for 6 months all complaints should then be sent to the SIA and there certificate removed if they continue to added unlawful fees Levy's etc

The bailiff company should also not have there contract renewed if they allow it to continue

[hazza]

tomtubby i have pm'd you! i have lots to add to this, but feel that a couple of days is insufficient to respond key points for me are: - the council must play/take a prime role in this. Complaints should be dealt with by the council - end to end. If councils want the money from fines, they must accept their responsibility to investigate, not ignore, complaints. All too often council's turn their backs on complaints about bailiffs leaving no choice but to submit a form 4. If councils had more responsibility over the actions of their agents, bailiffs would perhaps pull their socks up more. Making councils legally completely responsible for the actions of bailiffs may force councils to stop outsourcing collections to bailiffs. Looking further, I'd rather see bailiffs be council employees, wearing a council uniform, trained by the council, and is part of the council - and community. Bailiffs need to integrate into society more that way. Bailiff companies promote a sickly bailiff mentality - as they interact with few other areas of society - especially the ridiculous attitudes as seen on all the bailiff tv documentaries. Bailiffs need a council worker, public servant type of mentality, that way we might be more willing to pay fines. It is logically easier to ask someone nicely to be paid than attack someone in their home, which is what bailiffs seem to do. If the person is in another area, the council of the other area should be asked to collect - councils working together?

[kiptower]

SIA have prove there useless, how the hell can they they be given a LEGAL STATUS, they will have to introduce new laws to allow it anyway

[tomtubby]

I Think that all complaints regarding bailiffs fees unlawful Levy's etc should be directed to the council and if any complaints are upheld on more that 3 occasions they should then have all there cases looked at for 6 months all complaints should then be sent to the SIA and there certificate removed if they continue to added unlawful fees Levy's etc

The bailiff company should also not have there contract renewed if they allow it to continue

 

Interesting point.

 

I have spoken to the SIA and they did indicate that there will have to be a situation where they are made aware of complaints concerning an individual bailiff. How this is to be done will obviously be for a later date.

[hazza]

This is what i believe a bailiff should look like after the consultation.

I will respect them more. Anyone who makes me smile is a friend of mine.

Bailiffs should be helping more people in the community.

 

 

Sorry had to bring some humor as bailiffs and bailiff posts are not likely to bring joy.

[josephbloggs]

i personally feel when this comes into force that the typical stereotype of some bailiffs being nothing more than bouncers/doorstaff will be reinforced by the general public because they will have the same qualification and in theory will cross over from each of the employment sectors and looked at in the same way.

regarding the complaints procedure, if the bailiff is doing his/her job properly then they will have nothing to worry about anyway. 90% of bailiff complaints are nothing more than in respect that the bailiff has called and requested payment of a due debt, but for the others then they should go through the sia if they are the people who certify them.

[hazza]

"I have spoken to the SIA and they did indicate that there will have to be a situation where they are made aware of complaints concerning an individual bailiff. How this is to be done will obviously be for a later date."

 

The SIA should not be involved in this at *any stage* if complaints have not been thought about yet. I have a feeling much of this move towards SIA is geared around the money to be collected - not the dual need to certifcation (by application) and revokation (by complaint) both are hand in hand and any system should be built with a clear idea of the whole system.

 

Also, in a recent costs order that Segens so importantly rushed a copy to me (incorrectly addressed btw) for £9,000 - does ANYONE know anything about this complaint? Sounds like a parking industry saviour going under cover.... how can we see details of that complaint hearing? All that Segens sent me was the cost order with names dates and references feltman penned out.

[JonCris]

TT having not yet been allowed to use force to enter peoples homes & restrain them to recover civil debts as permitted in the new rules this is nothing more than a sop to convince the politicians that the time is now right for that part of the legislation to be enacted

Edited January 26, 2010 by JonCris

[cirian75]

I have worked in the contract security game for 12 years.

 

The SIA has not worked as envisaged.

 

Its all about collecting the money every 3 years from the individual.

 

the SIA is in my opinion 200% not the organisation to license bailiffs, further than that, I belive it is not "fit for purpose"

 

reasons

 

A- the exams to get the current SIA licenses are to easy, it can be done by the companys, and often is done for the less able employees, its practically a rubber stamp proccess now, aside the criminal record check

 

B- the SIA has very poor record of revoking licenses.

 

C- plenty of fake SIA badges out there.

[YANO BEMUSE]

I think it's worth repeating here what I said on this subject on another thread. It's premature for the SIA to ask about bailiff training before the MoJ has decided what the new law will be that the bailiffs will have to comply with. The MoJ has just postponed the consultation on the new law and say no more than it will take place during 2010.

[cirian75]

May General election ?

 

(strokes chin)

[JonCris]

I have worked in the contract security game for 12 years.

 

The SIA has not worked as envisaged.

 

Its all about collecting the money every 3 years from the individual.

 

the SIA is in my opinion 200% not the organisation to license bailiffs, further than that, I belive it is not "fit for purpose"

 

reasons

 

A- the exams to get the current SIA licenses are to easy, it can be done by the companys, and often is done for the less able employees, its practically a rubber stamp proccess now, aside the criminal record check

 

B- the SIA has very poor record of revoking licenses.

 

C- plenty of fake SIA badges out there.

 

Also remember it was this lot who recently licensed a whole bunch of illegal immigrants some of whom were later found to be guarding state buildings

[tomtubby]

I think it's worth repeating here what I said on this subject on another thread. It's premature for the SIA to ask about bailiff training before the MoJ has decided what the new law will be that the bailiffs will have to comply with. The MoJ has just postponed the consultation on the new law and say no more than it will take place during 2010.

 

YB

 

You are right on this point and in fact I had raised this matter myself with SIA and MOJ and suggested that they should consider EXTENDING this Consultation for a couple of months so that we can at least see what MOJ are proposing in their Consultation on bailiff reform and a new fee scale.

[Another Jack]

I think it's worth repeating here what I said on this subject on another thread. It's premature for the SIA to ask about bailiff training before the MoJ has decided what the new law will be that the bailiffs will have to comply with. The MoJ has just postponed the consultation on the new law and say no more than it will take place during 2010.

If it looks like a setup, isn't that what it is?

[danboy381]

Hmmm. For what its worth:- if a bailiff overcharges the debtor, or indeed, targets the wrong 'debtor' then he/she should face criminal charges, same if they don't correctly levy etc...

 

For example, the Police have to be 100% sure they can charge someone before doing so, otherwise it would open a can of worms in that the Police can be sued for wrongful arrest etc.. same should apply for bailiffs charging people money ('scuse the pun)

[tomtubby]

Hmmm. For what its worth:- if a bailiff overcharges the debtor, or indeed, targets the wrong 'debtor' then he/she should face criminal charges, same if they don't correctly levy etc...

 

For example, the Police have to be 100% sure they can charge someone before doing so, otherwise it would open a can of worms in that the Police can be sued for wrongful arrest etc.. same should apply for bailiffs charging people money ('scuse the pun)

 

A point that I have made recently to the SIA, is that if a bailiff does overcharge on fees and a formal complaint is made, the normal response is simply to say that " the fees are set by my employer" In other words the bailiff will claim that he had done nothing wrong.

 

What MUST happen is that there has to be a some sort of licence for the actual bailiff companies.

[hazza]

Bounce!

 

Segens so importantly rushed a copy to me (incorrectly addressed btw) for £9,000 - does ANYONE know anything about this complaint? Sounds like a parking industry saviour going under cover.... how can we see details of that complaint hearing? All that Segens sent me was the cost order with names dates and references feltman penned out.

[danboy381]

A point that I have made recently to the SIA, is that if a bailiff does overcharge on fees and a formal complaint is made, the normal response is simply to say that " the fees are set by my employer" In other words the bailiff will claim that he had done nothing wrong.

 

What MUST happen is that there has to be a some sort of licence for the actual bailiff companies.

 

 

....and I take it if they are caught they lose their licence.

 

Blimey. This would NEVER work though TT as there wouldn't be any bailiff companies left! Probably all struck off for fraudulent activities

[danboy381]

Having said that, if they do put their licences in jepardy, there must be legislation to stop them closing one company down and starting another to get round it.

[lollipop73]

I just wonder if in the blurb about the training it will say something a long the lines of.....produced in consultation with various sectors including consumer action groups.........I shudder to imagine the consequences.

 

Things I would like to see.

 

 

Personal accountability for the individual bailiff attending and the MD's/owners of the bailiff companies when it all ( rather inevitably) goes wrong and their dogs are caught lying, extorting, intimidating or attempting to coerce entry when they don't have the clear legal right to force entry.

 

Making it mandatory that the very first thing a bailiff produces is a document which outlines in a very clear and precise way a person's rights when dealing with bailiffs and making it a criminal offence punishable with a custodial sentence to fail to produce it-AND making damn sure the bailiff says clearly-"you do not have to let me in"? A document which is produced by the government in consultation with the legal profession, the CAB and consumer groups, and ABSOLUTELY NOT in any way doctored or produced by the bailiff company itself.

 

What about holding the police accountable when they aid the offender in telling you there is nothing they can do about this-or even worse telling you to let the bailiff in when you legally do not have to?

 

Making it illegal to salary bailiffs in any way other than as council employees and certainly certainly not OTE.

 

Anyone who does well as a bailiff currently, does so at the expense of others.

 

Full training of the police so as to cure their ignorance of what is and is not allowable in todays society. No one is allowed to break the law going about their lawful business-I am not allowed to speed on my way to work, why should they be given a blind eye when they break the law?

 

Furthermore, should it be proved that there is anything wrong with either the original bill due either to incompetency on the part of the council or bailiff then compensation is payable to the victim.

 

It seems camcorders are the only way to catch these people when they abuse their position and that is a disgrace in light of the vast numbers of complaints about them.

 

One must question the motivation of a bailiff company who has a problem with the above.

Edited January 27, 2010 by lollipop73