Forthcoming bailiff legislation

[lookinforinfo]

I am obliged to Sir Malcolm Rifkind for passing on concerns about proposed new Crime and Courts Bill and kindly took my concerns up with Helen Grant-permanent Under Secretary of State for Justice.

 

HG included a long report back to him on how the consultation has gone and the future implications. It is a long read.

 

One of the interesting snippets was on the section relating to the Cost of Enforcement Amendments.

 

The majority of bailiff companies agree that the costs would be minimal or a couple of thousand pounds at most. All except

one which claimed their costs of implementation would be £100,000. One can only conjecture which company it was but it

seems no wonder how some bailiffs think nothing of adding extra fees when their head office sets that example. The assessment by the panel selected a figure of £3000.

 

The Government are attempting to simplify the various laws relating to bailiffs and one of their beliefs is that this should cut down on the number of mistaken fees charged by some bailiffs.

 

Those poor dears who levy fees all day and every day are confused apparently by this rather than them being bad at math.. It will just make those bailiffs more creative in how they describe their fees-but I am an old cynic.

Edited June 5, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[josephbloggs]

I honestly believe the new system/ fee structure will make the collection sysyem a lot worse, and there will be a lot more problems, when i get home i will post an in depth response

[brassnecked]

Is this the cost they wish to pass on to an individual debtor, so £3000 added to an LO for 20 quid?

[lookinforinfo]

Is this the cost they wish to pass on to an individual debtor, so £3000 added to an LO for 20 quid?

 

No. The £3000 is the figure that the Government reckon that it may cost bailiff companies to implement the new reforms. They can hope to recoup those costs by the improved methods of collection. [iE kick

even more doors in to scare debtors into paying quicker.]

[lamma]

Does anyone seriously consider that new regulation on this area will be implemented such that it decreases the net revenue for the Government (and it's on street enforcement minions ?)

[brassnecked]

Does anyone seriously consider that new regulation on this area will be implemented such that it decreases the net revenue for the Government (and it's on street enforcement minions ?)

It will make things worse, my question in post #3 was an attempt at sarcasm, as bailiffs will overcharge whenever they can, and ongoing fees can get to that figure with constant ATR, van and other Brothers Grimm fees.

[danmcr]

As a Bailiff the proposed legislation along with the fees are a complete joke.

 

I did respond to the consultation and have seen a number of other responses from within the industry I'm unsure what this government is doing or thinking.

 

The enforcement industry needs a complete re-think, scrap different types of enforcement agents and form a new type who have accredited training (law, first aid, dealing and knowing when someones vulnerable, dealing with conflict and much much more), enhanced CRB checks, and more accountability for wrongful doings. The government should also provide a single point where people can get advice for free and who know what is right and what is wrong (it's my opinion CAB and some online resources are not capable of this)

 

Some of you may disagree but there is a need for the enforcement industry not a need to chase after petty debts such a people who cannot afford council tax but more for collection the millions in outstanding fines and business debts who fail to pay and are playing the system.

[josephbloggs]

it will only benefit the directors and owners of the big bailiff companies. Not the bailiffs themselves or the charge payers, and certainly not the local authorities.

 

i am led to understand the only fees will be the letter fee of £85 and the attendance of £215 NO others

 

most of the bailiff companies use self employed bailiffs for enforcement purposes and they currently get a %age (usually 50%) of fees added onto the debt IF they collect full payment. So with the current fee structure it is in their best interest to add as many fees as they can get away with, including removal fees, waiting time and others. this being said if the potential is there to collect full payment on a debt they will stand their ground and stay until they get their money or in some rare cases remove goods.

 

so next year we can say goodbye to the bailiffs who are employed by the small to medium sized companies, the ones who actually perform the first and second visits, the ones who collect payments and set arrangements perform levies and do walking possessions, set arrangements and understand the needs of their customers set realistic payment plans ( basically all the bailiffs we never hear about on this forum )

 

next year when many of these people get their visits from XYZ bailiffs the same as last year they expect there 40/50 pound levy fee and the 12 pound walking possession only to be told by the bailiff sorry no i need it in full straight away. gone will be the well built up relationships between local councils and the smaller bailiff companies, complaints will go through the roof, all the same the bailiff is demanding full payment.

 

instead of most accounts passed to bailiffs only incurring 42.50 at the most, each will now be minimum of £85.00 and every door knocked another 200+ quid - hence my comment that the bailiff company big wigs being the obvious winners in this outcome, so its no wonder that the companies are expressing the welcome transparent changes to the industry.

 

Back again to my original comment that bailiffs and customers themselves will suffer - if there is no incentive for a bailiff to have to list goods to put their fees on they will all become glorified postmen going to as many properties as possible to maximise their potential profits... if there is no other fees to be added to a debt why would they hang around waiting for a payment when they can leave a letter and move on to the next one to see if that's any better...

 

so for example here, if someone owes 1000 pounds and they incur the 85/215 combo making it 1300 pounds, there is a hpi free 10k car sitting on the drive, but to remove it the bailiff needs to call a towtruck, this fee will not be chargable so it would only cut in to the fees the bailiff has added on making it pointless for the bailiff to remove it. no real threat to remove, so the household think ok then well if nothing happens when we dont pay why pay it next year, or the year after!!

 

another example, bailiff visits and council tell bailiff company to accept an arrangement, the customer pays the costs and then stops paying, there is not a self employed bailiff in the uk that would waste his time and effort revisiting to collect payment when there is no financial benefit to him to do this. therefore the account either gets put on the backburner or gets returned to the council unconcluded

 

many accounts are re-hashed out to other companies if one company is unsuccessful (usually the afformentioned smaller companies get returns) - companies now wishing to accept this type of recycled work may get their costs but the bailiffs wont want to waste their time trying to collect the debts knowing that they have been attempted by the previous company bailiffs.

 

these previously mentioned examples will have a severe detremental affect on local authorities, many many files unpaid with more and more money outstanding.

 

this year the council tax reform and bedroom tax will mean many many more liability orders, and as soon as the people on benefits realise the only people bailiffs are likely to obtain payment from are those who are working and have the money or family and friends to pay, the threat to pay disappears and in many cases the debt will remain unpaid.

 

the bailiff industry is a dying trade - the bailiffs who set arrangements try to help and look after local authorities needs will be swept aside for the full payment only letter dropper bailiffs, and they will only want to work for companies who have a the massive amount of work, ie your equita's and your rossendales to maximise their chances of earning the most amount of money. like i said earlier, the smaller companies could well fall to the wayside and we could be left with just the big 2 or 3, the ones who flood this forum on a daily basis with their wrong doings.

 

finally here this thought has only just come to me, if bailiffs are certificated to levy distress by courts, and there is no need to levy goods to add costs now when doing a visit, there could be the argument that the companies do not need to employ bailiffs just someone who can drive a car and post letters basically any old joe with no training.

 

very testing and potentially difficult times indeed - not just for bailiffs but more importantly for the hundreds of local authorities in England and Wales

[danmcr]

It wasn't all that long ago that Local Authorities had to pay for Bailiff services, then this stopped and that's when admin fees, file management fees started appearing on peoples bills to make up ££££.

 

Employed Bailiffs usually get around 18k a year and have to meet a target of around 5k a month in fees, they will then get around 40% of fees collected thereafter.

 

One of my comments in the consultation was what incentive has the Bailiff got to leave goods? If he can get a couple more hundred quid he will remove goods!!!

 

I would disagree that it's a dying trade you only have to look at company accounts to see profits and turnover for all the major players is rising each year.

[josephbloggs]

hi danmcr,

 

lets say you had a file now where there was about 1000 pounds outstanding, you get it when its had £24.50 and £18.00 on it. so you turn up add a levy fee of £55 and a van fee of £130 and you seize the charge payers vehicle. so now there is about £1200 outstanding. you get 300 pounds there and then and set an arrangement of £200 a month. then it defaults and you get it back. as it stands now you can add further costs which could involve but is not limited to waiting time, 2nd van fee, removal/abortive removal fee, sch 5 head h fee or fees for 3 party removal vehicles. so at the very least you would not be returning for nothing.

 

12 months time in the same position, you arrive at the property and you can add £215 for turning up making it £1300. same again you get 300 pounds and set the same arrangement but this time you dont have to seize the vehicle to add the fee. the next month you could have it back. only this time if you go back you wont get any fees for going. but knowing you are on a target to get 5k then your commission and knowing that neither you or the company will have any monetary gain from it, you will simply get the rest of your work and go on to one with fees outstanding. the file wont get visited and none of your colleagues will want to go near it, so it gets returned - companies got its few quid and fire it straight back to the council where it sits unpaid

 

I would actually ague there is no incentive to REMOVE goods to be honest. there is no monetary incentive to a bailiff to take hours removing goods from a property or removing a vehicle because they cant add any more costs on, and any 3rd party costs have to go out of fee you have charged for turning up. many bailiffs will simply move on to the next file where someone might have the money

[johnmaddison]

Josephbloggs, a few points to note.

According to yourself you do the job correctly. Putting people on arrangement etc. As you self admit once people default, You add broken agreement charges. How is adding more costs helping anyone but lining your pockets ?

 

Also you say no incentive to return under new fee schedule as you have collected your fees. Typical council tax bailiff attitude.

But your presuming there going to pay you like now on your fees first !!

Gone are the days you can repeatedly rip people off. Broken arrangments waiting time etc.

Your job Is to service the client not zip around jobs looking for easy money.

 

I personally cannot wait for the fee reform to go ahead. Much fairer. Maybe bailiffs will do their job properly instead of just thinking about personal gain.

 

Sorry for spelling / punctuation errors typing off phone.

[tomtubby]

What ever happens, there will be complaints and it is sad that the government did not do something a lot sooner about the bailiff industry.

 

The new fee scale will be much clearer and it is "assumed" that it will be similar to the fees currently charged by the 4 enforcement companies enforcing unpaid court fines ( £85 administration fee followed by a one off visit fee of around £200.

 

I personally submitted a very lengthly and detailed response to last years Consultation on Bailiff Reform and as I understand it; draft regulations will be issued before Parliament retires for the summer recess and the new fees etc will be on the statute book for April 2014.

 

My own "personal" opinion is that the new regulations will lead to significantly LESS bailiffs being employed and bailiff companies will be enforcing debts by way of call centre's etc with a great deal of emphasis on contacting debtors by way of phone, email and in particular; text messaging.

 

There can be little doubt that large "back office" companies such as Capita will get a lot of the contracts with local authorities and many of the smaller bailiff companies must be concerned after hearing of their recent £40 million purchase of a specialist debt collection business. Also, as Capita currently has the TV Licensing contract they have access to an extraordinary database of personal information.

 

The smaller enforcement companies will either be acquired by larger bailiff firms or will struggle to survive.

[josephbloggs]

First of all i do not do the job myself, but i am in the position to understand very well the job and law because i am very good friends with 2 self employed bailiffs who sub contract to two seperate bailiff companies.

Please note the above examples are based on danmcr's post where he said he is currently an employed bailiff.

So if he was still employed i assume he would perhaps in my example take a part payment and set an arrangement. It is usually only self employed bailiffs who have to collect full payment to get their money, hence why they wont want to go back, but to be honest i cant see an employed bailiff wanting to either. They are on commission for a reason, to earn themselves more money by adding more fees on to debts

Finally here, the only reason people go self employed in the bailiff industry is purely for their own financial benefit if you think otherwise im sorry but if it was me or anyone else it wouldnt be of use to fork out all the overheads like accountants and a van insurance etc, to keep using time effort and fuel for nothing

[tomtubby]

The following is a copy of the recent press release from Capita about their purchase of IQOR UK (for £42 million).

 

http://www.capitacustomermanagement.co.uk/news/2013-news/capita-acquires-debt-recovery-specialists-iqor-uk

 

 

The other major problem that is causing concern for bailiff companies is that many local authorities are looking at retaining the "administration" stage in-house and thereby gaining the "admin fee". This would be a nightmare.

[johnmaddison]

First of all i do not do the job myself, but i am in the position to understand very well the job and law because i am very good friends with 2 self employed bailiffs who sub contract to two seperate bailiff companies.

Please note the above examples are based on danmcr's post where he said he is currently an employed bailiff.

So if he was still employed i assume he would perhaps in my example take a part payment and set an arrangement. It is usually only self employed bailiffs who have to collect full payment to get their money, hence why they wont want to go back, but to be honest i cant see an employed bailiff wanting to either. They are on commission for a reason, to earn themselves more money by adding more fees on to debts

Finally here, the only reason people go self employed in the bailiff industry is purely for their own financial benefit if you think otherwise im sorry but if it was me or anyone else it wouldnt be of use to fork out all the overheads like accountants and a van insurance etc, to keep using time effort and fuel for nothing

 

Self employed or employed the rules remain the same on collection.

Self employed is sometimes the only option. I was for 10 years. Its all tax deductable so the overheads are irrelevant.

I know you have friends who do the job. What you are saying is opinion and speculation only.

[brassnecked]

The following is a copy of the recent press release from Capita about their purchase of IQOR UK (for £42 million).

 

http://www.capitacustomermanagement.co.uk/news/2013-news/capita-acquires-debt-recovery-specialists-iqor-uk

 

 

The other major problem that is causing concern for bailiff companies is that many local authorities are looking at retaining the "administration" stage in-house and thereby gaining the "admin fee". This would be a nightmare.

Certain of us who are independent community councillors at town council level are most concerned with the spread of the uneradicable dandelion that is Capita. It is now too big, and must be contained, as in too much input into government functions to the level that Capita are running the councils.

[tomtubby]

Certain of us who are independent community councillors at town council level are most concerned with the spread of the uneradicable dandelion that is Capita. It is now too big, and must be contained, as in too much input into government functions to the level that Capita are running the councils.

 

One of the worst examples has to be the Westminster Council contract with Capita for non domestic rates which was signed a few years ago and is for a period of 25 years !!

 

I hear that the Birmingham City contract is no better....

[brassnecked]

One of the worst examples has to be the Westminster Council contract with Capita for non domestic rates which was signed a few years ago and is for a period of 25 years !!

 

I hear that the Birmingham City contract is no better....

In certain quarters they are alleging Crapita are in charge of the government, like OCP with Robocop, As so much is contractural in these arrangements , ever likely the FMOL brigade try it on, but fail

[lookinforinfo]

I am so sorry that I did not include the URL so that you could see the deliberations over the bailiff legislation

 

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/transforming-bailiff-action/results/bailff-repsonse-ia.pdf

 

To find out the proposed costs scroll to the end to find Annex E and F. If alleged debtors are contactable before bailiffs are sent out then it appears that no charges are made for Council Tax if an arrangement is put in place.

Bear in mind that so many of us tend to bury our heads in the sand [ie not opening letters] when we cannot afford the amount until we get the knock on the door from a bailiff, that this will mean that the

costs will escalate from then. One wonders how hard the bailiffs will try to contact debtors knowing that the money is made when they have to make visits.

[lookinforinfo]

TThe other major problem that is causing concern for bailiff companies is that many local authorities are looking at retaining the "administration" stage in-house and thereby gaining the "admin fee". This would be a nightmare.

 

Tomtubby are you saying it would be a nightmare for bailiff companies if that were to happen or for the alleged debtors? In any event where Council tax is involved their appears to be no fee payable at the

admin stage which rather begs the question why the bailiffs would want that part of the job anyway.

[danmcr]

A lot of people think that fees added to files are done so by Bailiffs when In fact all most all LA have it written in contact what Bailiff companies can and cannot charge, this along with the program Onestep which most Bailiff companies use to manage files decides how fees are applied to files. When a Bailiff attends a property and clicks visit the fees are automatically applied as set by the client. When they click levy it adds the correct levy fee along with other fees. That goes for all fees on an account. I have seen evidence by other companies of mass adding fees from the office which is wrong and totally illegal. Onestep can also be manipulated to add notes onto files which would look to the average person that a visit has been made by a Bailiff when In fact no such visit has taken place. Of course this would be denied.

 

My comment regarding removal of goods and what incentive has the Bailiff got was in regards to the upcoming changes, If the Bailiff can add more fees by removing goods he will do this, there is no incentive to leave the goods on a controlled goods agreement.

 

In regards to the fee scale lets not forget there will also be ways for further fees to be applied to a debt by way of exceptional costs process. What are exceptional costs? How easy will it be for a Bailiff to ask for exceptional costs?????

 

Employed Bailiffs have to meet a target as mentioned above, if they don't meet the target a few times they are forced to go self employed. Bailiffs that continually meet targets are treated to weekend breaks abroad and fun day!!!

 

I am lead to believe the MOJ are looking at stopping LA from keeping the Admin fee if they sub contract out services, This may not be the case.

[tomtubby]

A lot of people think that fees added to files are done so by Bailiffs when In fact all most all LA have it written in contact what Bailiff companies can and cannot charge, this along with the program Onestep which most Bailiff companies use to manage files decides how fees are applied to files. When a Bailiff attends a property and clicks visit the fees are automatically applied as set by the client. When they click levy it adds the correct levy fee along with other fees. That goes for all fees on an account. I have seen evidence by other companies of mass adding fees from the office which is wrong and totally illegal. Onestep can also be manipulated to add notes onto files which would look to the average person that a visit has been made by a Bailiff when In fact no such visit has taken place. Of course this would be denied.

 

My comment regarding removal of goods and what incentive has the Bailiff got was in regards to the upcoming changes, If the Bailiff can add more fees by removing goods he will do this, there is no incentive to leave the goods on a controlled goods agreement.

 

In regards to the fee scale lets not forget there will also be ways for further fees to be applied to a debt by way of exceptional costs process. What are exceptional costs? How easy will it be for a Bailiff to ask for exceptional costs?????

 

Employed Bailiffs have to meet a target as mentioned above, if they don't meet the target a few times they are forced to go self employed. Bailiffs that continually meet targets are treated to weekend breaks abroad and fun day!!!

 

I am lead to believe the MOJ are looking at stopping LA from keeping the Admin fee if they sub contract out services, This may not be the case.

 

I have a commercial business advising the public with regards to bailiff queries and what you have said above is 100% correct. Well done!!

 

I am afraid that for a very long time I have had serious concerns with "One Step" and you have confirmed the position to me.

 

I too am aware that MOJ are looking to stop LA's from keeping the admin fee and I have to be honest by saying that I do NOT think that it is right for the LA to deal with the admin part of enforcement UNLESS they also deal with the enforcement stage as well.

 

For instance, if the LA write an initial letter ( and thereby charge £85) the debtor may well respond in writing or by phone to outline financial problems/vulnerability etc. Unless the enforcement company deal with the entire process they will not know the background to the debtor and this could lead to serious problems with an personal visit being made to a vulnerable debtor. The LA's should either deal with the entire process or not at all.

[danmcr]

Hi Tomtubby.

 

It is my opinion that if the LA want to keep the admin fee then they should re-employ Bailiffs in-house and not sub-contact it out.

 

Off topic but in regards to the MOJ I received an email yesterday regarding another smaller forum with confirmation that they are investigating the ill-advice being offered.

[HCEOs]

I'm certainly not looking for sympathy here (and if I was I wouldn't get it!) but the costs in changing to the new system in 2014 are more like ten times that quoted by Alexander Dehayen.

[tomtubby]

I'm certainly not looking for sympathy here (and if I was I wouldn't get it!) but the costs in changing to the new system in 2014 are more like ten times that quoted by Alexander Dehayen.

 

As I am sure you know Alex Dehayen spent a considerable amount of time putting together all of the info for MOJ and I am also very surprised at how the cost has spiralled. Creative accounting....