Bailiffs and the Human Rights Act

[ploddertom]

Bailiffs and the Human Rights Act

 

The Human Rights Act, which came into force in October 2000, may see bailiffs being used less frequently. Part of the Act protects your right to 'peaceful enjoyment of possessions and respect for your privacy, family life and home'.

In practice, this should mean that courts and public authorities use bailiffs more as a last resort, and should consider using less intrusive and distressing ways of getting you to pay what you owe. These include:

 

• Benefit deductions;
  
• Attachment of earnings; and
  
• Voluntary payment arrangements.
  

I came across this earlier whilst looking for something else and wonder if it has any implications or if anyone has explored this avenue. I appreciate it may be old and out of date but it does seem to suggest the Council should treat the Bailiff as a means of last resort.

 

PT

[Pixidust]

I read a report about Councils using Bailiffs companies before exhausting other options. I can't remember where I read it, but it basically highlighted how the Councils were stystematically ignoring their own Guidelines and causing unnecessary distress to debtors.

 

The Council Tax (Adminstration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 details the right to apply for Liability Orders and details Attachments of Earnings, Distress, etc. It doesn't say that Distress Warrants should only be used as a last resort (not that I can find anyway), so it allows the Councils to use it at any stage they choose (which we all know is exactly what they are doing).

 

Most Councils have guidelines that they follow and every one I've checked states that Bailiffs should only be used as a last resort. Here is a typical example Council Tax recovery/enforcement information.

 

I think the problem is that "Guidance" isn't Law. You can choose to follow Guidance, but you have to follow the Law.

 

Until the Law for Council Tax Enforcement is changed to protect vulnerable clients (and I can't see that happening any time soon) we either continue our battle or hope that someone steps up and starts regulating Bailiff companies independantly (they'd probably call is OFBAIL or something like that lol).

 

The Human Rights Act does seem to contridict so many of our Laws, which makes it very hard to fight with something like this because Councils haven't acted illegally, just immorally!

[ploddertom]

I read a report about Councils using Bailiffs companies before exhausting other options. I can't remember where I read it, but it basically highlighted how the Councils were stystematically ignoring their own Guidelines and causing unnecessary distress to debtors.

 

 

I remember reading something similar and the reason given was that to employ the Bailiff after getting the Liability Order was solely down to costs. The Bailiff costs nothing and gets his fees from the Debtor whereas they have to pay to start Attachment of Earnings etc.

 

PT

[Pixidust]

Just seems a bit harsh when most people only default on the repayments because they have fallen upon genuine hardship. I know the argument about "if they can afford plasma tv's, etc" and "they should sell them to pay the debt". The likelyhood is they bought them when their financial situation was better and never thought their income would decrease so much. And sure, they could sell their goods, but they would only get a fraction of the value, so it isn't really a cost effective option.

 

Sometimes it's better to completely lose your job and receive benefits than it is to have a significantly reduced income and be living slightly above benefit rates).

 

What a world we live in eh!