Government Defeat on Bully bailiffs

[outlawla]

A victory for Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords: Government Defeat on Bully Bailiffs

[seanamarts]

A victory for Baroness Meacher in the House of Lords: Government Defeat on Bully Bailiffs

 

This is good news, one small step and all that

 

Have you posted this up outlawla?

[brassnecked]

This is good news, one small step and all that

 

Have you posted this up outlawla?

 

One small step, yes this one is down to outlawla, he deserves a major prize for research.

[outlawla]

Around 2 or 3 speeches after 3:30pm from House of Lords Hansard, 18 December 2012 Crime and Court Bill (Third reading)

[TB Law]

The C&C Bill as I understand it is to introduce the Bailiffs and Enforcements Council as an approved regulator. For bailifs to be regulated, it needs a statutory regulator - whose function will:

 

-licence bailiffs

-approve the businesses and organisations that employ them

-accredit the professional bodies that represent them

-set standards of conduct

-monitor performance

-investigate complaints

-punish failure to comply with regulations and order redress where appropriate

 

But government will never do it because its the government stands to be the biggest loser being the largest benefecial user of bailiffs.

 

Its widely accepted that bailiffs are having to collect as much money from debtors that do pay, to offset losses from debtors that dont pay which is why we have this mess we see today.

 

A statutory regulator? Stand on me, it will never happen.

[seanamarts]

wow thats excellent, lets hope something is done and soon. Perhaps a copy of that should be sent to councils around the country, especially those who employ Martons, Rossendale and Equita. Thats about two thirds of the councils then

[seanamarts]

The C&C Bill as I understand it is to introduce the Bailiffs and Enforcements Council as an approved regulator. For bailifs to be regulated, it needs a statutory regulator - whose function will:

 

-licence bailiffs

-approve the businesses and organisations that employ them

-accredit the professional bodies that represent them

-set standards of conduct

-monitor performance

-investigate complaints

-punish failure to comply with regulations and order redress where appropriate

 

But government will never do it because its the government stands to be the biggest loser being the largest benefecial user of bailiffs.

 

Its widely accepted that bailiffs are having to collect as much money from debtors that do pay, to offset losses from debtors that dont pay which is why we have this mess we see today.

 

A statutory regulator? Stand on me, it will never happen.

 

I hope to see you proved wrong, If we all thought as you did there wouldnt be a place like this. Its time for change it is being recognised that bailiffs need to be leashed and trained to behave and play by the rules, if not then they are out, full stop.

 

Too many are coming forward for this to be ignored any longer.

[brassnecked]

The words were fine and dandy, in Hansard but they still shilly-shallied around the issue with many platitudes but little substance imho

[caledfwlch]

I just don't understand why the Government, whichever stripe is in power is just so damned stupid, is the Bailiff Lobby THAT powerful?

 

Replacing Bailiffs with a more humane system would mean that all government owed monies, council tax, fines etc would have a 100% recovery rate, surely thats attractive, hell the reason Councils are abusing the bankruptcy and bailiff system is to try and raise their stats.

 

For Private CCJ debt I would consider bringing a system similar to NI, but with more of a focus on automated/electronic recovery rather than a chap popping round. How I imagine such a system and some of its scenarios:

 

I have just had a CCJ awarded against me in Court - I am there in this scenario - I do not ask the Judge to vary my order, as this will be default, what happens instead is the Judge simply says "Mr Caledfwlch are you able to make a payment to clear the debt in its entirety today or within the next 2 months?"

"No Your Honour"

"OK" says the Judge, "now, please pop across and see Mr Smith in Room 4"

I get to Room 4, and sit down with Mr Smith, a HMCTS Debt Officer. We now have 2 potential backgrounds for myself

A: I am in full time employment. B: I am on benefits.

Background A: Mr Smith shows me the usual repayment plan - for example, if working full time minimum wage, then this is £10 a week, payable online monthly. He explains that if I miss a months payment, then HMCTS will automatically apply an Attachment of Earnings Order unless I have a good reason.

Scenario B: Mr Smith explains that from now on HMCTS will automatically deduct repayments from my benefits at £3 a month say.

 

Such a system would be far easier to administer, far more efficient and be far less damaging to society than the Bailiff system. The emphasis would be on encouraging voluntary engagement, with harsh penaltys and recovery methods for those who refuse to engage, much like in NI. I genuinely have no problem with the Her Majesty's Courts being able to automatically apply and use AOE's on people refusing to engage, since this would remove bailiffs, would make debt recovery that has gone to court far more humane, and would even remove charging orders etc.

 

I imagine a lot of work would be needed into looking into the mechanics and so on this is just my "quick idea scribbled out" solution.

[brassnecked]

@ Caledfwlch "I just don't understand why the Government, whichever stripe is in power is just so damned stupid, is the bailiff Lobby THAT powerful?"

 

Yes unfortunately that would appear to be so, in fact a bigwig from MOJ defected to one of the very bailiff companies who cause debtors most grief recently!

[outlawla]

I just don't understand why the Government, whichever stripe is in power is just so damned stupid, is the Bailiff Lobby THAT powerful?

 

Replacing Bailiffs with a more humane system would mean that all government owed monies, council tax, fines etc would have a 100% recovery rate, surely thats attractive, hell the reason Councils are abusing the bankruptcy and bailiff system is to try and raise their stats.....

 

 

The propaganda from the likes of Miss-Jones doesn't help. You know the sort of thing – £Xmillion debt collected which would otherwise be taken away from caring for the elderly. However, the government just takes it all in.

 

When you look at successful debt collected by bailiffs as a percentage of debt passed to them, their effectiveness is abysmal.

 

Even when put in percentage terms, the information is still misleading and bailiff performance, even at these low levels is over rated.

 

What they always omit from these PR stunts is to tell you how much of the "so called" collected debt, paid via the bailiff firm would actually have been paid regardless of them being intsructed.

 

In relation to outstanding council tax, how much of the money paid via bailiffs would be money owed purely as a consequence of instalment facilities being cancelled? Authorities are unfortunately permitted to do this because of flawed Council Tax legislation, but whichever way you look at it, this element of alleged outstanding money owed would not technically be outstanding debt. Councils just create a temporary debt by demanding the entire liability at once by cancelling instalments.

 

Householders struggling to hit instalment dates will have been pushed into paying the entire council tax in one go and consequently forced into paying additional fees for court costs and bailiffs when they obviously struggled in the first place.

 

In these cases, the majority of the money would have been paid by the end of the financial year despite court action and bailiff enforcement. Perhaps the reason they don't want to change things is because each council can make at least a couple of hundred thousand pounds a month in court costs.

Edited December 21, 2012 by outlawla