Ministry of Justice release the Consultation Paper on the reform of the bailiff industry

[brassnecked]

Point 38 relating to paragraphs 24(2) 31 (5) need close examination, or we will end up with bailiffs invoking the power and grabbing hold of debtors and possibly handcuffing them to restrain them s to enable them to enter if a debtor tries to shut the door

 

Going back to Outlawla's post, If a council obtain a LO for a trifling amount, say £1 as has been done by the council , in his area , NELC, then miraculously the debt has gone up to £301, or 300 times the original, plus whatever else the council can add on so we are talking of some Council tax debts increasing by factors of many times the original.

Not good. One problem is if they are enforcing for these small debts and the fees are significantly more than the original debt, and the debtor is on JSA at single, or couple rate, then the FEES ALONE are more than four weeks JSA for a single person, and almost three weeks money for a couple over 25 with no children.

 

This scenario will become more common as often a council will obtain the LO whilst benefit is being calculated in a redundancy or job loss situation.

 

I have this question for MOJ. Where is the "Justice" in that Mr Djangoly?

Edited February 18, 2012 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

Sewing kit....nice you see you back. In answer to your question:

 

tomtubby - is this what you were involved in when I talked you on the phone and you mentioned you visited parliament for meetings and reviews with the industry and ministers, etc?

 

Yes....but unfortunately, at each of the meetings the emphasis was on discussions regrading a regulator and the matter of fees was NOT debated.

[brassnecked]

So they will go round and round in circles debating regulation, and the fees will be nodded through with minimal discussion in all probability. A disaster snatched from the jaws of victory, bearing in mind most posters looking for help on CAG are Can't pay, due to a financial disaster, job loss, illness, disability divorce etc, rather than a willful won't pay.

 

How the fees will help them discharge their debt, especially where they are way above the original debt, is one question,

[tomtubby]

I would like to make a suggestion.

 

This public consultation is FAR too important an opportunity to miss and the views of debtors are of vital importance.

 

The Consultation is broadly split into specific parts with one of the most important being the proposed fee scale and the appointment (or ideas) on a regulatory body. The Consultation will run for 12 weeks and what would be an ideal situation is if this particular thread was used by us all to address EACH AREA INDIVIDUALLY. What we need to avoid is a question being raised about fees etc and a few posts later, discussing the right of force entry. In this way, it would be far simpler in a few weeks time to read back on the many comments made.

 

The way that this could work is for instance if for the next week, discussions were limited to the matter of fees being proposed and the following week maybe exchanging views on a regulator/complaints etc. Another vitally important part of the consultation concerns the definition of "vulnerable" groups.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[brassnecked]

I would like to make a suggestion.

 

This public consultation is FAR too important an opportunity to miss and the views of debtors are of vital importance.

 

The Consultation is broadly split into specific parts with one of the most important being the proposed fee scale and the appointment (or ideas) on a regulatory body. The Consultation will run for 12 weeks and what would be an ideal situation is if this particular thread was used by us all to address EACH AREA INDIVIDUALLY. What we need to avoid is a question being raised about fees etc and a few posts later, discussing the right of force entry. In this way, it would be far simpler in a few weeks time to read back on the many comments made.

 

The way that this could work is for instance if for the next week, discussions were limited to the matter of fees being proposed and the following week maybe exchanging views on a regulator/complaints etc. Another vitally important part of the consultation concerns the definition of "vulnerable" groups.

 

Any thoughts on this?

Good idea TT, but perhaps we could split off say the main issues into linked threads, so that one would be for FEES, one Forced entry/use of personal force to restrain a debtor, and so on. with the main thread used to capture anomalies like the effect of the new structure on outlawla's situation, where the council still wanted their enforcement fees, or the landlord who was not liable for tenant's council tax but is still being chased for the £80 LO fees, which would now be £300 or the £1 LO that is now £301.

 

That way each could be more manageable and capture more precise and ongoing information to submit.

 

After a quick skim over I think they are trying to close down and restrict vulnerability, so that perhaps someone on benefits would be hit by the fees and have to pay £300, even if the debt goes back to the council, where presently the bailiff may only get a first visit fee. and only the disabled or ill regarded as vulnerable, so protected. there seems to be a provision banning the seizure or clamping of a motor displaying a blue badge, which would be welcome.

Edited February 18, 2012 by brassnecked

[tomtubby]

Brassnecked. Great idea. I don't know how this could be started and will need one of you "computer literate" posters to see how this could be set up.

 

During the day I can put the sub headings together if that would assist?

[brassnecked]

Brassnecked. Great idea. I don't know how this could be started and will need one of you "computer literate" posters to see how this could be set up.

 

During the day I can put the sub headings together if that would assist?

If the site team make a sticky for the consultation, and set up your sub headings as sticky's also, there could be an announcement on the headers of the relevant pages, plus on the site homepage asking people to contribute, that might work.

 

This consultation is too important to let the vested interests lead the way with this,

[sewingkit]

Thanks TT, nice to be here again but it does bring back old unpleasant memories!! But your and the help from the people on this site help was truly great, thanks again

 

yeah, you are correct I think. I haven't got the time to sit and read it all the way through and tbh, i don't understand the legalese. this is the main problem with this, it will just fizzle out to a few hardened advocates, we need to bring this into format that everyone can easily read and comment on.....

 

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT and opportunity must be taken, a duty to all people that come on here in the past and future

 

This needs to be done in such a way that people can feedback as best they can without having to read it, the doc is just too intimidating, people will stop and it will just get passed through without OUR contribution.. Think about everyone, the bailiff firms will throw a good bunch of fully trained solicitors at this and come up with a professional response. We will not be able to do that if our "responses" are here in a haphazard way. IT IS weighted in their favour atm if we do not go back with either our individual entries , which i think will be a low take up, it would better to have a group response or at least through some

 

Yes, I think to make it easier, like TT says to break it down to thread for each area and the post in that making it easier to collate responses for each

 

I think taking this idea further a new section should created called "Bailiff consultation Paper - Responses" with fixed stickies for the headings mentioned above that way it is prominent and in fixed place so people can get to it all time. Feedback can then be easily entered and collated by people for their own individual replies or group responses by TT/Fair Parking and such.

 

You could even go a step further an have a sticky at the top of each with "bullet pointed listed points" as quick reference for new people inot that particular thread

 

If it is a standard thread here it will get lost as new threads are posted. We cant miss this, lets get organised!!!!!!

 

Comments/thoughts

 

...and i wanted a lie in!

 

edit, brassnecked, u got in there first, great minds think alike.....

[citizenB]

Brassneck/TT, can I suggest you send a private message to Martin3030 or an email to [email protected]

 

Explain what it is you actually want in order to get the maximum responses - I am sure they will be able to help on such an important issue

 

It is interesting to note that it is expected that people who are in financial difficulties in the first place, where they are unable to meet their priority obligations are then also expected to pay huge amounts of costs AS WELL !!

 

There has to be a better way to collect arrears of council tax than employing these bullies !

[seanamarts]

I agree with everything you have said CB. I will do what I can to help.

[brassnecked]

PM sent to Martin3030

[citizenB]

Tom Tubby and Brassnecked..

 

I have spoken to Martin and he will sort out the sub forums for you

[MARTIN3030]

Thanks for heads up.

Sub forum now started;

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?355-MOJ-Consultation-on-Bailiff-reforms

If there are any particular threads which need to be stickied or locked,please contact a site team member.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?355-MOJ-Consultation-on-Bailiff-reforms

 

Here you go, TT / Brassnecked.. your new forum is linked above

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?338715-Introduction(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

This one is the main Thread - Introduction

 

You can start new threads for the indvidual questions.

[brassnecked]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/forumdisplay.php?355-MOJ-Consultation-on-Bailiff-reforms

 

Here you go, TT / Brassnecked.. your new forum is linked above

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?338715-Introduction(2-Viewing)-nbsp

 

This one is the main Thread - Introduction

 

You can start new threads for the indvidual questions.

 

Most Excellent!!!

[tomtubby]

I will get some suggestions for sub heeadings sorted out in the next couple of hours. Thanks everyone....

[brassnecked]

Just in case anyone misses this, I posted this link on he sub forum for the MOJ consultation.

Something interesting here from the Guardian:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/17/bailiff-regulations-cost-debtors-more?newsfeed=true)

 

At least someone at CAB has grasped the implication and confirmed my fears and assumptions regarding costs.

 

if you check the article it would also pay to read the comments, as one posted by SharpChip suggested that the threshold for transferring debts up to High Court for a writ of Fi-fa should go up from £600 to £5000. This would stop the likes of Southern Water sending Sherfarce with a writ that increases the debt from £601 to £3,601

 

i would suggest all Caggers respond to this consultation, and hopefully the sub headings from tomtubby will be ready later so we can put a structure to this and make CAGs contribution to the consultation meaningful and an accurate indicator of what should be the outcome.

[outlawla]

brassnecked,

 

Re; Guardian link

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/17/bailiff-regulations-cost-debtors-more?newsfeed=true

 

It seems our ever present bailiff model specialises in electrical appliances.

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/09/phantom-visit-fraud.html

[brassnecked]

brassnecked,

 

Re; Guardian link

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/feb/17/bailiff-regulations-cost-debtors-more?newsfeed=true

 

It seems our ever present bailiff model specialises in electrical appliances.

 

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/09/phantom-visit-fraud.html

 

looks like the TV on your link would get all of £0.01p at auction, surely a levy solely to garner feeds for himself:lol:

 

Hope he left them a cooker in the Guardian picture.

[outlawla]

looks like the TV on your link would get all of £0.01p at auction, surely a levy solely to garner feeds for himself:lol:

 

Hope he left them a cooker in the Guardian picture.

If your career as a bailiff is going down the pan, don't despair, there's always an opening, posing for the press:

 

New rules set to protect those with unpaid debts and tackle unruly practices that blight bailifs

[brassnecked]

If your career as a bailiff is going down the pan, don't despair, there's always an opening, posing for the press:

 

New rules set to protect those with unpaid debts and tackle unruly practices that blight bailifs

 

There's another five quid at auction then

[wonkeydonkey]

I am slowly ploughing my way through what has been published, although I doubt I will be able to understand it all within the 12 weeks allocated to this before I need to reply.

 

Our present economic climate has brought people who have never been in debt in their lives to the position they are now in serious financial difficulties, a lot of these people struggle to come to terms with their new found situation and often is the case they just simply bury their heads in the sand and offer prayer the next job to replace the one they have lost is just around the corner or a change to their circumstances will see a miracle and they will be able to "catch up".

 

Cagger have recognised this is not the reality of the situation simply by the fact they are here, asking for advice. Yes, there is information out there to helping people deal with debt and yes the leaflet that accompanies those threatening letters will indeed encourage a few to seek that help but, in the main most of these people are and remain for a long time, in denial and think their situation will improve/ go away.

 

Water Companies I think, are perhaps the biggest predator on mankind , ok so they send the standard letters and our debtor being in denial ignores them, next they seek CCJ and transfer to the likes of Sherforce nothing to say they shouldn't ,so what the hell, they can justify the action ..Sherforce [by way of example] in turn see this as a nice little earner and with the debtors head held low they go for the throat. Our debtor gets a wake up call but it sends them into total dispair and we go full circle.

 

These companies are big enough to support designated area advisers to attend various drop in centres, advice centres (such as cab) and even rural village halls, for say a hour a week whereby people can attend specifically to deal with the problem to paying a water bill, they could sort it there and then, face to face with the advisers. as opposed to trying to deal with a faceless call centre manned by script governed staff who have no authority to be of any real help to the debtor and are nothing more than a human answering machine who will pass your message on.

 

Costs to the waterboards are likley to be less than the call centre charges , they would be likely to see an increase in their recovery rates as more and more people realise they can be assessed on the spot and make small realistic payments geared to their true circumstances ( anyone can tell a tale but evidence must be there to back it up)

 

If the proposals to the reforms to the bailiff industry go through as written, then they will need to add further statistics for "future amendments".

 

The % seen in the increase to the suicide rate, directly attributed to the impact of the reforms....... will also need to be calculated?

[brassnecked]

@ wonkeydonkey, the suicide rate will increase exponentially, as the financial realities hit the newly poor, so it is important we dissect this document and comment under the headings kindly provided by tomtubby. We can even concentrate on just the areas we are familiar with, as doubtless other Caggers can cover the others in a similar manner.

 

Water is an essential to life so shouldn't even be in private hands imho

[wonkeydonkey]

@ wonkeydonkey, the suicide rate will increase exponentially, as the financial realities hit the newly poor, so it is important we dissect this document and comment under the headings kindly provided by tomtubby. We can even concentrate on just the areas we are familiar with, as doubtless other Caggers can cover the others in a similar manner.

 

I know that BN, you know that and every cagger on this site knows that but, it seems those that drafted the reforms haven't recognised that Blood from Stone would indeed become a miracle.... and the higher the pile stones the less chance there is of people getting to dig below it.

 

 

Water is an essential to life so shouldn't even be in private hands imho

 

I agree totally

[brassnecked]

Whoever thought out these fees should realise that increasing the fee payable from the £42.50 possible for a first and second visit fee to £305, which is payable even by people on benefits if the account is handed back for council tax is ludicrous, mind you those in Westminster must be in a parallel universe where money is FIAT and grows on trees.