Ministry of Justice today release the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

[tomtubby]

This morning the Ministry of Justice released the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

 

This is a very detailed response which consists of 72 pages and can be accessed by way of the following link.

 

You will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading of RESPONSES:

 

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

[AndyOrch]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rules-bailiffs-industry-000326450.html#PRs8Go8

[sequenci]

This morning the Ministry of Justice released the Government's response to the Consultation Paper on Bailiff Reform.

 

This is a very detailed response which consists of 72 pages and can be accessed by way of the following link.

 

You will need to scroll down to the bottom of the page under the heading of RESPONSES:

 

 

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digit...bailiff-action

 

Thanks

 

I look forward to reading this on my lunchbreak!

[tomtubby]

You will need a bit longer than a lunchbreak!!!!

[outlawla]

Interesting recommendation from the LGO on page 35 of the response.

 

Remedies and Complaints handling

 

139. The consultation paper set out the existing complaints procedures and sought views on whether this was sufficient. (Question 53)

 

141. The Local Government Ombudsman supports the Governments position (what is the LGO if not the government?) on not introducing a complaints body covering the industry as they are concerned about the impact that such a proposal would have on their own jurisdiction.

 

142. We consider that the proposed changes to the law, fees and the certification process will address some of the current complaint issues. It is clear, however, that there is a need to work with all stakeholders and the Local Government Ombudsman to clarify the details of the complaints process so that there is a greater understanding as to how debtors can seek redress. In particular, setting out the remedies that are available and where they could be obtained.

[brassnecked]

needs a good read, and double check to digest this.

[wonkeydonkey]

Well I burned the midnight oil and read the report from start to finish making notes on the way.....conclusion... some positives but sadly they far outweighed by all the negatives.

 

Even when presented with all the evidence to bad practices, it seems this government are hell bent on permitting the' bad apples' and those that employ them to continue to operate without being regulated.

 

Yes, the media took a peak at what has been a shamelessly costly exercise but even they appeared to want to tuck it away.......is this because they don't really grasp the implications?

 

WD

[brassnecked]

is this because they don't really grasp the implications?

 

They have been told to let it lie most likely, as they might find themselves with a nice statutory regulator who will gag them.

[caledfwlch]

One thing I reckon that could help would be outlawing bond insurance. It will concentrate Bailiff's minds a hell of a lot more if they have to scrape together several grand out of their own pocket, and thats whats at risk.

[HCEOs]

Whilst general opinion on here was always going to be that it hadn't gone far enough surely the fee reform must be something of a win.

 

Whether it is a certificated bailiff or an HCEO at least now the fees will be transparent and easy for all to understand.

[HCEOs]

One thing I reckon that could help would be outlawing bond insurance. It will concentrate Bailiff's minds a hell of a lot more if they have to scrape together several grand out of their own pocket, and thats whats at risk.

 

And this is exactly what an authorised HCEO has to do.

[outlawla]

Whilst general opinion on here was always going to be that it hadn't gone far enough surely the fee reform must be something of a win.

 

Whether it is a certificated bailiff or an HCEO at least now the fees will be transparent and easy for all to understand.

 

And thanks to a certain Miss Jones being in bed with the Mo(in)J, she's managed to wangle around a 600% pay rise.

[HCEOs]

And thanks to a certain Miss Jones being in bed with the Mo(in)J, she's managed to wangle around a 600% pay rise.

 

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

[outlawla]

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

 

That brings me to another point. If these private bailiff firms have the potential to be so profitable, why the hell have almost all local authorities outsourced their enforcement to them? They use exactly the same statutory fee schedule, and probably all of these firms are contractually obliged to do additional administration for free, not to mention the ones who pay councils a percentage for the business.

 

Either a missed opportunity for councils to make a killing, or the private bailiff firms are up to something a bit iffy.

[HCEOs]

Have you ever known a government department to be run or managed as efficiently as private enterprise...???

[outlawla]

It's certainly not Julie Green-Jones that has any clout at the MoJ. Her so called pay rise is merely through the management of a successful enforcement business and is a share of dividends.

 

CCR Magazine had a different view....

 

 

Julie Green-Jones has been instrumental in helping the Ministry of Justice to shape new legislation under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 that is due for final consultation to all relevant parties soon.

 

 

They can't be that inefficient, they're making £millions.

 

Have you ever known a government department to be run or managed as efficiently as private enterprise...???

[HCEOs]

I would say that is more PR than substance. CIVEA and the HCEOA played a part and I believe she may have been part of the former in a working group rather than in isolation.

[Deadwood]

This extract argues that an HCEO's cost base is higher because of the the greater likelyhood of disputes including interpleader proceedings and costs assessments. It's a pity that the HCEO's charge too much and wrongfully sieze goods then?

 

7.2.5.

Legal complexity of cases handled

High Court Enforcement tends to be a more legally complex process than Non‐High Court Enforcement, since:



HCEOS have the obligation to have a wide ranging knowledge of Civil Procedure Rules and should be prepared to defend that knowledge and expertise before senior judiciary as the circumstances of each case dictate;



following the levying upon goods, it is more common that an interpleader process will be entered into, during which the debtor and third parties may make representations relating to the status and legal ownership of goods levied upon;



HCEO fees are more often challenged by debtors through the legally complex process of detailed cost assessment; and



since the HCEOs actions are potentially subject to legal challenge by the creditor, to whom the HCEO has enhanced duties and obligations (compared to an EA), various aspects of the case must be recorded and administered to a level of accuracy and detail that could withstand examination in the context of a legal challenge. The administration of High Court Writs of Fi Fa therefore includes a greater level of detail and quality of information than that of non‐High Court distress Warrants.

As a result of all of the above considerations it is necessary for HCEOs to employ admin staff with greater levels of skill, and often with legal qualifications. Suitably qualified admin staff demand higher salaries, and serve to increase the staff overhead cost per case for HCEOs compared to EACs.

[wonkeydonkey]

More bullsh*t to justify the existence of these HCEO's... £600 magically turned into 2k against people who would never have imagined themselves on the wrong side of 'poverty', the same people who are queuing to get food parcels to help them survive....what next...debtors prisons..workhouses?

 

WD

[ploddertom]

The attending officer may only get £25 or so, whilst the Company racks up to £750 for the same person, just so happened to find out from a disaffected "enforcement officer" what he actually received. Also believe this came up at a Costs Hearing last year where the HCEO had to quantify what the attending officer actually received - the Judge then downward graded what they were claiming.

[caledfwlch]

So HCEO's should be entitled to charge more, because their horrific fees are often challenged by debtors. WTF!

 

Our civil "justice" system seems a complete farce to foreigners.

 

What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff.

 

CAB or somebody needs to run a proper national campaign advising people on their rights, showing how to keep your goods out of Bailiff reach by SD's etc. Best way to fight this monster is to starve it.

[HCEOs]

So HCEO's should be entitled to charge more, because their horrific fees are often challenged by debtors. WTF!

 

Our civil "justice" system seems a complete farce to foreigners.

 

What lunatic system do we run where private debt is only enforced by public officials, and public debt is enforced only by private staff.

 

CAB or somebody needs to run a proper national campaign advising people on their rights, showing how to keep your goods out of Bailiff reach by SD's etc. Best way to fight this monster is to starve it.

 

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

[Deadwood]

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

 

You obviously haven't read my last post on this thread. Some of the reasons given for higher charge scales is the extra costs because of disputed ownership, disputes over charges and legal difficulties. Firstly a Fi Fa writ is extraordinarily easy to obtain, a doddle, so no great cost there then. Disputed ownership might be a tricky one with business debts because of varied ownerships of premises, different limited companies, personal ownership etc but really not that bad because all PLC and Ltd companies are online together with financial status. I would classify those problems as very easy to sort out by a moderately intelligent person in a few minutes. Disputes over charges occur simply because HCEO companies charge far more than they should. I would warrant that 90% of costs hearings probably go with the debtor.

 

In the case of personal creditors and sole traders there is no greater difficulty than that faced by a certified bailiff.

 

The simple fact is that HCEO companies have been driving a coach and horses through the legal system and the Masters at the High Court are fed up with dealing with fall out.

[sequenci]

The simple fact is that HCEO companies have been driving a coach and horses through the legal system and the Masters at the High Court are fed up with dealing with fall out.

 

100% agree.

[caledfwlch]

HCEOs are entitled to charge more because the costs of running the back office are significantly higher than a 'Bailiff' company. I would argue, like Alex Dehayen put in his 2009 report, that the main costs increase is due to dealing with thousands of different clients, mostly individuals and small businesses, that reuire our help to get back money they are rightfully owed. Most 'Bailiff Companies' have a handful of LA/HMCTS clients that are managed by bulk reporting etc.

 

And your last point is plain ridiculous.

 

What is ridiculous about educating people on their rights, and getting the lawful, legal ways of protecting your goods from levy into public knowledge?