SCOOP....Up to date news stories about bailiffs, debt, universal credit, and much more.

[mikeymack2002]

Is it because the LA applied to a Court for a LO and therefore comes under the remit of the Magistrate warrants system?

 

 

If the bailiff wants to force entry from April are the new rules there to slow this process down or is it there to make it easier for the bailiff to collect from the debtor by means of forced entry, or do they have to have had peaceful entry first?

 

 

So will we see more forced entries from April what are the thoughts on this part?

 

 

MM

[brassnecked]

Is it because the LA applied to a Court for a LO and therefore comes under the remit of the Magistrate warrants system?

 

 

If the bailiff wants to force entry from April are the new rules there to slow this process down or is it there to make it easier for the bailiff to collect from the debtor by means of forced entry, or do they have to have had peaceful entry first?

 

So will we see more forced entries from April what are the thoughts on this part?

 

 

MM

 

It is possible that new provision will abolish peaceful entry and allow an application by bailiffs to force their way in at a far earlier stage as per magistrates fines in the name of "harmanisation" looks like whoever has drafted this mess needs if not to be hung drawn and quartered, at the very least subjected to bailiff action themselves to test it out I'm sure they would like to experience a visit from one of Capquita's finest, Bristols & Stupor, or Rossendales not a lot, if the council messed up and allocated their payments to the wrong account, sought a Liability Order and instructed bailiffs.

 

That is my worry that bailiffs will use DCVA 2004 to try to apply for forced entry as a first option. for Council Tax

[tomtubby]

Hopefully over this weekend I should be able to provide more details on the way in which Schedule 12 (Taking Control of Goods) will work. I will do so in the right thread.

 

Just to reassure you, there WILL be the right to force entry but this extreme provision will be VERY limited and apply only to the following:

 

In order to gain re-entry after defaulting under a Controlled Goods Agreement.

 

If a debtor allowed a bailiff into their home to enforce a debt for council tax or unpaid PCN and in time defaulted on the controlled goods agreement (at present waling possession) then a bailiff will be permitted to RE ENTER the premises (in the same way as he is allowed at present). HOWEVER, under Schedule 12 the bailiff may ONLY re enter by applying to the court for permission. We will have to see how this works in practice but 'on the face of it' this appears to be a vast improvement.

 

To enforce an unpaid magistrate court fine

 

In 2006 the previous government introduced a new clause (4A) into the Domestic Violence Crimes & Victims Act permitting a bailiff to force entry to enforce an unpaid court fine. This (awful) clause will remain BUT from 6th April the 4 bailiff companies enforcing distress warrant (as they are currently know) will have a stricter criteria imposed on them before being allowing to force entry. Once again, we will have to see how this works but 'on the face of it' this again appears to be a vast improvement.

 

Enforcing of High Court Debts.

 

I am not too sure how this will work and this is best left to HCEO to explain.

 

It is important to mention that following the CIVEA conference it is anticipated that there may well be MANY changes to Schedule 12 (and the fee scale) in the next few months. Accordingly, the above is my understanding but may change.

 

PS: I have sent a question to MOJ to ask whether a new Forced Entry Protocol will be released by 6th April.

[brassnecked]

Thanks TT if they get it wrong the results will be catastrophic, and the already low opinion many have of the enforcement industry will fall below the already rock bottom perception. It just needs the National Dailies to pick up on one rogue bailiff after April to do this.

[tomtubby]

Have a look about half way down the SCOOP page for the story about the increase in food banks and arrears of rent and council tax in Cornwall. The new bailiff fees are going to seriously impact on these families.

[brassnecked]

That article will no doubt also be indicative of the situation in many other places also. Collection of debt is a conundrum and is in reality not so simple as the fact that money is owed, in many cases the debtor though a misfortune cannot now afford to pay (yes we know there are wilful non payers). The problem is how adding more to the debt in fees and charges, is going to help it be repaid, especially when a council like NELC who have obtained liability orders on debts of a penny, will turn the penny into a debt of £400 or so at the first knock after April if VAT is also imposed.

[mikeymack2002]

Have a look about half way down the SCOOP page for the story about the increase in food banks and arrears of rent and council tax in Cornwall. The new bailiff fees are going to seriously impact on these families.

 

I am involved with various food banks in my area and have seen a massive rise in those asking for assistance now, what with all the new regs coming out things are not anywhere near close to being the worst it can get, it will watch, but everyone needs help now that's a fact.

 

 

MM

[mikeymack2002]

Brassnecked I have seen with my own eyes a LO for a penny, then with bailiff fees it went over £300-00 and this was a council worker, so they will even eat their own to fatten the coffers.

 

 

MM

 

 

I have also started a new thread here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?416668-bailiffs-use-of-a-locksmith(30-Viewing)-nbsp

[brassnecked]

I am involved with various food banks in my area and have seen a massive rise in those asking for assistance now, what with all the new regs coming out things are not anywhere near close to being the worst it can get, it will watch, but everyone needs help now that's a fact.

 

MM

 

The situation for many is becoming increasingly dire, and how raising fees for enforcers to make

their misery causing "industry" more "transparent" along with new rules is not even a bandage on a broken leg.

 

Meanwhile the politicians say we are all in it together, but then they can put it all on expensesor so it seems.

[brassnecked]

I'm sure the "Enforcement Industry" are salivating over this one, and their chance to earn a few more bob

 

http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/finance/benefit-cuts-leave-70000-people-in-council-tax-arrears-says-labour/7001929.article?utm_medium=email&utm_source=Ocean+Media+&utm_campaign=3622309_IH%3a+Daily+News+-+03%2f02%2f2014&dm_i=1HH2,25MZP,81W00R,7SI78,1

[tomtubby]

Very interesting comment from the Shadow local government secretary, Hilary Benn criticising local authorities that use bailiffs where debtor are vulnerable.

 

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Benn-hits-out-at-councils-that-use-bailiffs/35526

[brassnecked]

Very interesting TT, but surely all the politicos knew exactly what the changes would mean when they nodded it through, it was obvious bailiffs were going to go in hard on vulnerable debtors.

[Coughdrop]

Have there been any predictions on the potential increase in CO's and bankcruptcies as a result of the changes yet? Of course court fines would not be written off anyway, so they could wreck lives and still chase their pound of flesh.

[mikeymack2002]

Have there been any predictions on the potential increase in CO's and bankcruptcies as a result of the changes yet? Of course court fines would not be written off anyway, so they could wreck lives and still chase their pound of flesh.[/

 

 

More than any one can count

 

 

MM

[tomtubby]

I am really surprised to read the story today in SCOOP that the television series the "Sheriffs are Coming" have won the prestigious "Best Daytime Programme" at the Broadcast Award 2014 event on Wedneday.

[tomtubby]

Further proof that debtors are struggling financially is demonstrated in today's SCOOP story from Plymouth that more than 18,000 people were summoned to court in the space of nine months last year for failing to pay their council tax – a rise of more than 60 per cent on the entire previous year.

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

[outlawla]

Further proof that debtors are struggling financially is demonstrated in today's SCOOP story from Plymouth that more than 18,000 people were summoned to court in the space of nine months last year for failing to pay their council tax – a rise of more than 60 per cent on the entire previous year.

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

 

There is another article in the Plymouth Herald (November 15, 2013), which together with the current one and a Freedom of Information request, highlights how profitable the "Welfare Reforms" have been for local authorities and the Court's Service.

 

It was quoted in the Plymouth Herald article, November 15, 2013 (see below) which is an admission in anyone's language that Plymouth City Council was profiting, therefore breaking the law, with the income generated from magistrates' court costs:

 

"

The panel recommended cutting the charge of a liability order from £83 to £60, which is close to the break-even point for the council

Admitting to the press that they profit (and get away with it) highlights the lack of control, and provides evidence that Magistrates' courts accept, without evidence, that the expenses claimed have been incurred.

 

However, in one of the responses to the FoI request, it stated that "Plymouth City Council are not liable or responsible for what is published in the local press" and could "verify that the overall cost spent on recovery action exceeds the income that we receive from liability order charges".

 

It had previously submitted the calculation below to support its claim that the overall expenditure for recovery action exceeded the income received from liability order charges:

 

The costs of £83.00 are calculated as follows:

 

• Total revenue cost of Council Tax administration £2.65m

 

• Percentage of workload and time spent on recovery process 30.2%

 

• Notional budget spent on recovery £0.800m

 

• Number of Liability Orders for which the Council aims to recover costs: 8,065

 

• Charge for each Liability Order of £83

 

• Total income forecast for 2013/14 = £0.669m

 

Apart from it being obvious that the figure was made up, i.e., 30.2% of the overall Council Tax budget being attributable to recovery, the data and the way it was calculated relating to summons and liability order costs was completely botched.

 

If it had used figures for 2012/13 obtained from CIPFA, then even with the dubious £0.8m claimed as recovery expenditure, the calculation would be have shown a £46k surplus as a profit for the council.

 

However, the whole situation changes drastically if you substitute actual data obtained from the Plymouth Herald (11 Feb, 2014), which incidentally relates only from April to December 2013 (an incomplete year for 2013/14):

 

• Notional budget spent on recovery £0.800m

 

• Number of Summonses for 2013/14 (part year): 18,262

 

• Number of Liability Orders for 2012/13 (part year): 10,993

 

• Summons income for 2013/14 = £1,095,720

 

• Liability Order income for 2013/14 = £252,839

 

• Total (part year) income for 2013/14 = £1,348,559m

 

As you can see from the calculation (still using the unrealistically over estimated £0.8m claimed as recovery expenditure), there would be £548,559 surplus which will be substantially more when costs are added in respect of the remaining three months recovery income.

[outlawla]

In debt families in Bedford to face higher bailiff charges

 

"

.....

Bedford Borough Council uses bailiffs to recover council tax and business rate debts. In 2012/13, the authority referred more than 5,000 council tax cases and around 400 business rate cases to bailiffs.

 

However, in a major change to the system, the Government is raising the fees payable by debtors from £24.50 to £310, a 1,165 per cent increase. Bailiffs will also be able to levy 7.5 per cent of the value of any goods seized of more than £1,500, limiting the ability of residents to pay what they owe.....

.

[brassnecked]

In debt families in Bedford to face higher bailiff charges

 

"

.....

Bedford Borough Council uses bailiffs to recover council tax and business rate debts. In 2012/13, the authority referred more than 5,000 council tax cases and around 400 business rate cases to bailiffs.

 

However, in a major change to the system, the Government is raising the fees payable by debtors from £24.50 to £310, a 1,165 per cent increase. Bailiffs will also be able to levy 7.5 per cent of the value of any goods seized of more than £1,500, limiting the ability of residents to pay what they owe.....

.

So the backlash begins, bet that same council will refer to bailiffs as usual without compunction anyway.

[mikeymack2002]

The population in Bedford was 79,190 (2005), in 2012 it was Population: 159,207 in mid 2012 (Office for National Statistics). This is a 100% increase in just 7 years, So the defaulting rate for non paying Ctax payers is at a massive 20%, why has the LA allowed such a massive rise in defaulters? using the rule of thumb by TT we all know this effect of this in real financial terms will be so much more money in the coffers of the bailiff, plus the Council will get some money (eventually) after the new fees are taken first.

 

 

So in reality the way forward is that the Bailiff company's are going to get really rich really fast. The Councils will still have debtors on their files and they will only see a small fraction of the actual amounts recovered, So all in all the only winners will be the Bailiffs, yet again, why has the MOJ allowed this to happen? surely there should be a clause in the new legislation that the Bailiff should only be allowed to make 2 visits before the debt is returned to the Council for them to seek a committal Warrant? THIS would still get the bills paid, if not the debtor is jailed, harsh I know but this would see an increase in the amounts repaid surely, I know this post will get my butt kicked, so be it but one way or another the bailiff has even more powers to retain the monies received by them before they have to pass it back to the Council.

 

 

This can be seen now as profiteering? It also seems obvious that the Council are doing very little to help themselves in the first place, and that it really shows that they are doing an awful job in the first place in recovering earlier in the first place? Now this is where things in this post could change for the better, now in this climate surely the Council should be asking for direct payments for all benefit recipients, this way it takes away the lower paid households out of the reach of the Bailiff, in this manner the ones NOT paying are the ones that can afford to pay but chose NOT to for what ever reason!

 

 

We all know money is very tight at present but surely getting it right now before the new rules come in will save a lot more sadness and heartache for the much lower paid in our society? I am just one guy here in my neck of the woods that is doing some good, as in as much has forced our local ALMO to reconsider how they deal with rent arrears, some of my ideas have already been taken on board in the new terms and conditions that were issued in 11/2013, they have already seen an increase in defaulters, but are working harder to keep the tenant in their homes, rather than seeking possession at an earlier stage, thus keeping the Bailiff out of the equation.

 

 

Eventually the Councils will see that the use of the Bailiff will only cause more harm than good, but what else can they do to get the money they are owed? I am now wandering what will happen next with the systematic abuse of the new rules will have in the long run, it's obvious the DEBT WILL spiral out of control the Bailiff will get even more heavy handed as the debtor will have no chattels to seize and have nothing of value left, this may force up the crime figures where people commit minor crime to get money to live on.

 

 

We all know that there are certain things in life that some people can not do without, like beer, fags, drugs food to name but a few, but not everyone uses drugs or goes out drinking, they just can not afford to live on the money they already have, How the heck will these poor souls be able to have anything like a decent life? they wont as their money will be swallowed up in fees long before they can buy food, the vicious circle now begins.

 

 

The way forward must be simpler for all that are in debt but heyho we know that score don't we, priority debts first, £1-00 pm for debts, but what about the fees still outstanding to the Bailiff? is this a PRIORITY debt? I guess so now. So who now wins?....... THE BAILIFF

 

 

Thankfully I AM NOW OUT OF DEBT THANKS TO CAG...... Have I hit and run? NO!!!!! I am paying it forward, helping out the few my head will allow, saving some poor soul from losing everything they have worked their entire lives to save/earn for, I want to stand on a roof and yell to the world now get out of debt before APRIL as you will find you have NOTHING left to have in your life except the FEAR OF A BAILIFF knocking at your door taking everything you have....it's going to get very expensive very fast for you please start now before its too late, make arrangements now before it goes to Court, to coin a new phrase out of a well known movie "IF YOU DONT PAY IT THEY WILL COME" the original phrase was (if you build it they will come) Field of dreams with Kevin Costner.......

 

 

MM

[brassnecked]

Adding massive fees to an already unaffordable debt is really a great way to clear it (NOT) In the really real world these fees at the first call that are coming in are higher than a weeks income on 40 hours at minimum wage.

[outlawla]

Adding massive fees to an already unaffordable debt is really a great way to clear it (NOT) In the really real world these fees at the first call that are coming in are higher than a weeks income on 40 hours at minimum wage.

 

Page 12, 3rd paragraph of this bailiff action consultation could explain why the new fees structure is so extortionate:

[brassnecked]

Page 12, 3rd paragraph of this bailiff action consultation could explain why the new fees structure is so extortionate:

 

Well yes that may have something to do with it, Paras 2 and 3 quoted below

 

The public might take some persuading that a serious attempt is being made by the MoJ to stamp out this malpractice in the bailiff industry, especially when such a cozy arrangement exists between the offending bailiff firms and the MoJ.

 

For instance, Julie Green-Jones the chief executive of Rossendales has been involved in helping the Ministry of Justice shape new legislation under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act.When proposals include a 600% hike in the fee structure, it’s obvious why she would want to work closely with the MoJ and influence legislation. But what is unlikely to go down well with the public iswhy the head of an enforcement firm, well publicised on TV and in the press for its unlawful practices, would

b e a suitable candidate for holding discussions with the MoJ

[Clunks]

JGJ left Rossendales ages ago!?

[tomtubby]

 

Page 12, 3rd paragraph of this bailiff action consultation could explain why the new fees structure is so extortionate:

 

 

WOW !!! I am speechless........

 

A quite frankly excellent document and one that deserves a HUGE 'pat on the back'. You are truly amazing.