Phoenix, JBW, Equita and Rundles – binned by Sutton Council

[outlawla]

BAILIFFS BINNED AFTER 'CHERRY-PICKING' CASES

 

Bailiffs employed by Sutton Council concentrated on collecting their own fees rather than chasing debts, it has emerged.

 

Sutton Council is to change its debt collection service after the four bailiff companies used by the Council earned £405,000 in fees last year, but reclaimed just 28.4 per cent of unpaid council tax, and 12 per cent of unpaid parking fine from the cases they were assigned.

 

A report into the service stated bailiffs were generally paid a minimal salary with incentives to incentivise productivity, but this could act as deterrent to full collection of the debt, as bailiffs earned continual fees from broken arrangements and the need to re-visit properties.

 

The report stated: "Not all cases referred by the authority are worked on as the bailiffs have a tendency to select the cases that will attract the highest fees or will have the most likelihood of some successful collection."

 

Councillor Tim Crowley, deputy leader of the Conservative opposition, said it meant some residents would have been "disproportionately disadvantaged", and ended up paying more than was fair, while others with debts had not been targeted by bailiffs at all.

 

He said: "This system has been going against the council's equalities policy, as not everyone has been treated the same. I am pleased a more proportionate system has been put in place."

 

Sutton Council will now be entering into a shared service with Merton Council, using the neighbouring borough's in house bailiff service, which has been twice as effective at recouping debt.

 

It is hoped the deal will help save the council £140,000 a year, on top of increased collection of debt.

In the last year Sutton Council referred 3,600 cases of non-council tax payment, 360 business rates cases and 1,900 parking fine evasion cases to bailiffs, recouping about £1.5m.

 

Councillor John Drage, executive member for finance and efficiency at Sutton Council, said: "Merton Council’s inhouse team has a good track record, and by joining forces with them we hope we’ll be able to recover more money for the public purse."

 

˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~

 

Proposals for shared service with Merton Council, using the neighbouring borough's in house bailiff service

 

˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~˜~

 

Freedom of Information Request to Sutton Council

 

Use of Bailiffs (Ref 3254)

 

1) A copy of the authorities code of practice on bailiffs.

 

Copies of code of conduct/practice attached for all 4 bailiff companies (if you would like copies please contact us quoting reference 3254)

 

2) copies of the actual bailiff contract with the authority.

 

We are unable to provide this information as it is commercially sensitive

 

3) Details of whether your authority has internal bailiff officers or utilizes external bailiff companies, if external companies, how many? and the names of these firms.

 

We use 4 external bailiffs:

 

Phoenix Commercial Collections Ltd

JBW Group

Equita

CCS/Rundles

 

4) How many council tax liability orders have been applied for in last 8 quarters

 

CTax 2838

NNDR 257

Edited March 30, 2012 by outlawla

[caledfwlch]

I am absolutely stunned, and shocked.

 

Surely Bailiff's wouldn't enforce only for their fees, and mistreat both debtors AND their client?

[ploddertom]

It would be nice to think the writing is on the wall and should send a warning to all bailif companies. I have long thought that if each Council appointed their own in house Bailiffs - suitably certificated - pay them a salary commensurate with the County Court Bailiff, any charges they then make will set off or make a profit. A closer eye can be kept on their activities - discipline would be easier - therefore less complaints and recovery rates would improve. May be a good idea to make all Councils aware of this development.

 

PT

[outlawla]

....May be a good idea to make all Councils aware of this development.

 

PT

 

An article appearing in the Grimsby Telegraph made no impression on North East Lincolnshire council.

 

It shamelessly renewed Rossendales' contract in January this year.

 

 

Could be worth raising this point in the "Transforming Bailiff Action" consultation, to the Ministry of Justice

Edited March 30, 2012 by outlawla

[Fair-Parking]

10 out 10 for Sutton in dismissing greedy bailiffs.

 

Struggling to reach 0/10 for using Merton. Merton is one of the few Councils to use their own in house bailiffs. The idea that they can hire them out to other councils for collections irrelevant to Merton has profound data protection issues.

 

Personal data isn't something that can be made readily available to third parties through convenience and that it also saves costs. What do these people think the DPA is for - if not to protect personal data?

[brassnecked]

Good news here but the other 99% of bad bailiffs are still out there

[wonkeydonkey]

and the Wisemen were told to follow that star.....lets hope they all do and we get all Councils back to having control over their in house bailiffs.

 

WD

[sillygirl1]

As a resident of Sutton, (I sent the link from the local paper to the site team yesterday) I can confirm that the bailiffs DO cherry pick round here because we are a supposed 'affluent' area.

 

However Merton Council are very 'devious' as past personal experience has shown so we may be no better off...

 

All bailiffs should be stopped from being paid commission, that would go a long long way to stopping the overcharging that would appear to be rife in the business.

 

There are good bailiffs, I know one personally, and he has gone out of his way to help people, including putting them in touch with me and I have put them in touch with this site! He doesn't work for the council lot though!

[Fair-Parking]

You would be right to worry about Merton's bailiffs. Neither this council nor it bailiffs have any scruples when it comes to enforcing parking. They are as bad as all the others with clamping, bullying, intimidation and fraud.

 

If ever there was an example of why it isn't any better for councils to have their own bailiffs, Merton would be a prime case.

[sillygirl1]

Here is the link from the local paper

 

http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/news/9618183.Bailiffs_binned_after__cherry_picking__cases/

 

Who would like to bet Merton won't 'cherry pick' either.

[wonkeydonkey]

You would be right to worry about Merton's bailiffs. Neither this council nor it bailiffs have any scruples when it comes to enforcing parking. They are as bad as all the others with clamping, bullying, intimidation and fraud.

 

If ever there was an example of why it isn't any better for councils to have their own bailiffs, Merton would be a prime case.

 

"In house" says enough to establish the Council lose the right to trot out all the usual crap.. "we cannot deal with the debt now it has been passed to the bailiff" "we cannot recall it from the bailiff" "you must deal with the bailiff" "your complaint must be directed to the bailiff" etc etc as they are directly responsible to the bailiffs they employ. Thats the reality of it ...however as you so rightly point out that will differ to the Council's interpretation of:

 

"Working In House"

 

"Working in-house differs from private practice in that you are directly involved with the business of your employer, you won't have a traditional client base because you act for your employer."

 

WD

[Fair-Parking]

Unfortunately Merton has directed people to 'deal with the bailiff', even though he was and remains a full staff member.

[wonkeydonkey]

Unfortunately Merton has directed people to 'deal with the bailiff', even though he was and remains a full staff member.

 

Then perhaps they need to be educated by a dedicated 'fair rights' campaigner to the definition and be asked to give the way they interperate "in house"?

 

WD