Government releases Good Practice Guidance to Local Authorities regarding bailiffs and collection of Council Tax

[tomtubby]

Eric Pickles has ordered a clampdown on the use of bailiffs by local authorities and he has also warned councils about "kickbacks" from bailiff companies.

 

I will post back later with a copy of the guidance that has been released.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/407830/Clampdown-on-the-bullyboy-bailiffs-to-protect-families

[brassnecked]

Hope the guidance is positive and does clamp down on the naughty enforcers whilst protecting debtors from excessive fees and bullying.

[spamheed]

we really don't need more guidelines that can be misinterpretted, we need legislation with teeth ie. "do this and you will lose your mealticket"

[tomtubby]

I have contacted the DCLG Press Office and they confirmed to me that today the Communities Secretary; The Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP released Guidance to Local Authorities on Good Practice in the Collection of Council Tax Arrears

 

My persaonl opinion is that the Guidance is excellent and is very easy to read indeed.

 

The Guidance has been introduced following the debate in the House of Lords by Lord Lucas on the very serious matter of local authorities receiving "kick backs" from bailiff companies. This dreadful practice was first highlighted in Summer 2011.

 

On 15th September 2011 Mr Bob Blackmore ( Conservative MP for Harrow East) raised a Parliamentary question in the House of Commons where he referred to this payment as being an "unfair practice". In response, the Leader of the House; Mr George Young confirmed that he would be referring this enquiry to the DCLG to see whether:

 

"There is any irregularity in Harrow Council seeking a "kick back" from this contract".

 

It is my understanding that with the parking enforcement contract between Harrow Council & Newlyn Plc it provides for Newlyn to pay Harrow a sum of 10% of their income from bailiff activities.

 

An outline of the new Guidance can be read here and you will need to go to the bottom of the page to read a full copy of the Guidance.

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/clampdown-on-councils-using-heavy-handed-bailiffs

[tomtubby]

Ending "phantom visits"

 

According to the DCLG:

 

"This guidance will put a stop to the worrying practice where some bailiffs undertake "phantom visits"- charging inflated fees for putting a letter through a door- whilst not actually making any relaistic attempts to speak to people or negotiate payment plans"

 

"Any such practices should be grounds for TERMINATION of a Contract with FRAUDULENT activity reported to the police as a CRIMINAL OFFENCE"

 

[tomtubby]

Ceasing Council Kickbacks

 

According to the DCLG:

 

"Further protects make it clear that it is inappropriate for councils to receive extra payment or profit-sharing from the use of bailiffs and the charging of fees. Contracts should not involve rewards or penalties which incentivise the use of bailiffs where it would not otherwise be justified."

 

"One example North West London Borough of Harrow was expected to recover £1 million by contractually making its bailiffs hand over 8% of their fees"

Edited June 17, 2013 by tomtubby

[tomtubby]

Further protections:

 

• bailiffs providing the debtor with a contact number should they wish to speak to the billing authority;
  
• local councils remaining responsible for the action of bailiffs they have contracted;
  
• in-house bailiffs having to explicitly state that they are part of the local authority;
  
• councils publishing their standard scale of fees on their website, to allow public scrutiny and highlight unreasonable practices; and
  
• actively encouraging councils to sign up to that good practice protocol
  

[danmcr]

Why do I suspect there is a hidden agenda with this?

[outlawla]

Just quickly scanned through the report and can't believe how far they've gone.

 

EDIT:

 

So how will councils be able to justify that the £70 – £125 they charge for a summons in reality costs any more than £5 max?

Edited June 17, 2013 by outlawla

[tomtubby]

I am very pleased indeed with this Guidance and it has gone a lot further than I would have hoped. The use of the word "fraudulent" is very welcome indeed.

[brassnecked]

Just quickly scanned through the report and can't believe how far they've gone.

 

EDIT:

 

So how will councils be able to justify that the £70 – £125 they charge for a summons costs any more than the £5 max it really costs?

Beats me, perhaps then under these guidelines a disgrunteld can't pay can report the council for the excessive fees.

[tomtubby]

So how will councils be able to justify that the £70 – £125 they charge for a summons costs any more than the £5 max it really costs?

 

 

I wrote a very detailed letter to the DCLG on this very subject a couple of months ago......

[ploddertom]

I have used one of your Posts TT and added a PDF of the Guidance document to make a sticky as this does appear to be a most important development.

[wonkeydonkey]

Excellent report thank you TT, a quick look on the CIVEA website...and lo and behold this doesn't even get a mention? wonder why they haven't openly published the report?

[brassnecked]

Thanks for this TT have downloaded the full word document, it makes interesting reading that will not sit well with the bailiff companies

[tomtubby]

Thanks for this TT have downloaded the full word document, it makes interesting reading that will not sit well with the bailiff companies

 

 

 

This is very likely to be the most IMPORTANT document about bailiffs that has been released for a very long time. Even the "revised" National Standards for Enforcement Agents" was bland compared to this Guidance.

 

Granted...it is only Guidance but it can be used as the basis of complaints to local authorities. The problem however is that debtors are NOT writing letters. They MUST DO SO.

[lismarlilmia]

can someone please tell me where I can access this new guidance? can't seem to find it when I search. Thank you.

[citizenB]

can someone please tell me where I can access this new guidance? can't seem to find it when I search. Thank you.

 

Link in post # 4 - scroll down to the very end of the article linked and there is another link to the full guidance.

[citizenB]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/council-tax

 

I think this takes you directly to the download page.

[ploddertom]

can someone please tell me where I can access this new guidance? can't seem to find it when I search. Thank you.

 

Top of page in Sticky's http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?394368-Guidance-to-local-councils-on-good-practice-in-the-collection-of-Council-Tax-arrears%281-Viewing%29-nbsp there's a PDF of it.

[lismarlilmia]

Thank you.

[Fulhamboy]

Its a shame its only guidance ,because you can bet that bailiff Cos and their inside men on the councils

will be finding ways around this . I hope that if they carry on misbehaving Pickles will have to

bring in legislation. One thing I am looking forward to is when my c/tax payment is late by 1 day

and a LO issued . when phoning the c/tax office they cannot insist on not dealing with me and refer me to the bailiffs.One last whinge , councils should be dictating terms to Bailiffs not the other way round.

Like the energy companies it is too much of a cosy cartel and should be stopped.

[tomtubby]

Today the Government confirmed that a "commitment" was made to the Harrow East MP; Mr Bob Blackman on 15th September 2011 to "review the unacceptable practices in the London Borough of Harrow".

 

The following article is taken from the iHarrow.com website today:

 

Harrow East MP, Bob Blackman, has today called on Harrow Council to bring an end to its “exploitative” bailiff contracts.

 

 

His call comes following new guidelines published this week by the Department for Communities and Local Government. The new guidelines make it clear that it is inappropriate for councils to receive extra payment or profit-sharing from the use of bailiffs and the charging of fees.

Contracts should not involve rewards or penalties which incentivise the use of bailiffs where it would not otherwise be justified. Harrow Council has currently signed contracts with bailiff companies which entitle the council to receive 8% of the total amount of fees charged.

 

 

In a letter to Harrow Council’s Chief Executive, Bob Blackman has requested that the existing contracts be cancelled and renegotiated to comply with the new guidelines. Mr Blackman has indicated that he will be obliged to take the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman if Harrow Council is unwilling to engage.

 

Bob Blackman Said: “The reality is that Harrow Council is operating an increasingly exploitative regime in terms of its debt collection. In receiving 8% of the bailiff fees charge, Harrow Council has an incentive to see them reach a level that is as high as possible. This is clearly wrong and not what residents expect from a Council that is supposed to serve them and represent their interests”

 

 

“As the bailiff companies lose 8% of their revenue, there is a greater pressure for them to press harder and charge higher fees to maintain profits. The picture becomes even murkier when one considers that Harrow Council employs multiple bailiff companies to compete against one another”.

 

 

Figures suggest that the five biggest bailiff companies in the UK earn a combined revenue in excess of £60 million. Harrow Council has previously stated that it would instruct bailiff companies to recover debts in the region of £10 million, of which it would expect to see £3 to £4 million to be collected. It is estimated that this would generate nearly £1 million in bailiff fees – 8% of which would go to Harrow Council as part of its current contractual arrangements.

[dpac123]

This is very interesting. I have just received a letter from Rossendales which apparently relates to 2013/14 council tax. When I spoke to the council it appears that they are now employing Rossendales to arrange payment plans BEFORE they grant liability orders. On the basis that there is no liability order in place, it's good to see that this report says that I am within my rights to set up a payment plan direct with the council and not have to deal with Rossendales. I wonder also whether there will be a "liability order fee reclaim" along the lines of bank charges for the £70 or so councils add to the bottom line once a liability order is granted.

[outlawla]

....I wonder also whether there will be a "liability order fee reclaim" along the lines of bank charges for the £70 or so councils add to the bottom line once a liability order is granted.

 

Council tax: the £3.5 billion rip-off

 

Things might be changing, as far as getting more transparency over these issues. Secretary of state for the Department of Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles, is having his say on these matters.

 

Of particular relevance is Paragraph 3.4 of the report:

 

3.4 Local Authorities are reminded that they are only permitted to charge reasonable costs for the court summons and liability order. In the interests of transparency, Local Authorities should be able to provide a breakdown, on request, showing how these costs are calculated.