Bailiffs powers slashed - really??

[bazm]

All weekend the tabloids (and twitter) had headlines on bailiffs powers slashed. But have they really? Seems like a master stroke by MoJ and the advice sector have fallen for it.

 

Bailiffs not allowed to call at night - when have they ever called in the middle of the night. In fact visiting times and days have been extended.

 

 

Goods protected, really? In anything the tools of the trade cap means more trades vehicles will be seized. The listed goods are hardly likely to have been taken before anyway.

 

New fees introduced for the vast majority of debts; council tax and business rates up to £310 from £42.50

 

New offence of obstruction for which a person can be arrested and go to prison

 

If this reform does not work in the bailiffs favour then you can bet that the regs will get tweaked to their advantage pretty quickly. 4 million actions a year of which 80% are from local authorities means that the government has to get this to work.

 

Finally, the new regs mean that the bailiff industry will have to work closer with the courts which in turn means more favourable decisions. If in doubt ask the sheriffs, they had the same situation some years ago. Now decisions are almost rubber stamped (particulary in regard to costs).

[brassnecked]

Actually on the face of it debtors are less protected, and a smail business or sole trader may well be prevented from working and therefore discharging their debt as in effect they will lose there specialist tools, a mechanic with a Snap on Chest will have upwards of £3k worth of tools so which spanners does the EA take? or does he have the two specialist trollyy jacks and breaker bars for changing truck wheels, worth £1500 or the toolchest with £3k of assorted spanners leaving what as all are required for the job?

 

What if it is council tax arrears caused by benefit reduction, family has a disabled parent and they are reliant on ESA/DLA, the EA takes what is not exempt, so takes the microwave not the oven, but due to the disability, the disabled parent can't use the oven but can use the miicrowave (common situation oven is unused) They have the coffee table TV and DVD player away, but the goods are insufficient to cover fees let alone debt, does Nulla bona apply? So EA decides that as the car is owned by debtor, but on a zero VED tax disc, they will argue the toss and take it anyway, albeit potentially unlawfully.

 

Still the same old same old issues of affordability for can't pays, the new fees will make their situation much worse.

[avfc1]

I think the bailiff companies are definitely the real winners here.

 

 

The debtor does have better protection but at a price.

 

 

Instead of being ripped off with "raked up" fees, the bailiff or EA as they're now called can make a killing legitimately.

 

 

My interest is going to be in the percentage of debts recovered. A bailiff company collecting for Council Tax for instance is motivated only to get to the visit stage which will rake in £300+. A car on the drive will be advantageous to the creditor as the EA will levy (& rake in more fees). No car on the drive = no more money for a second visit. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. If anything, it will put competition for contracts on a more even playing field as success figures will be more important than ever.

[HCEOs]

As usual the media missed the point on most of their blurb.

 

The real point regarding their headlines is that much of which was mere guidelines in the National Standards is now regulations. Further to this some things have been specifically clarified like the exemption of washing machines/cookers, private ambulances and pets.

 

Bailiffs (now Enforcement Agents) have not had any real powers taken away and some would argue that for the main enforcement industry things could be a little better (increased fees etc).

 

It will be interesting to see how the next 6 months go for all parties concerned.

[brassnecked]

I think the bailiff companies are definitely the real winners here.

 

 

The debtor does have better protection but at a price.

 

 

Instead of being ripped off with "raked up" fees, the bailiff or EA as they're now called can make a killing legitimately.

 

 

My interest is going to be in the percentage of debts recovered. A bailiff company collecting for Council Tax for instance is motivated only to get to the visit stage which will rake in £300+. A car on the drive will be advantageous to the creditor as the EA will levy (& rake in more fees). No car on the drive = no more money for a second visit. Will be interesting to see how this pans out. If anything, it will put competition for contracts on a more even playing field as success figures will be more important than ever.

 

 

Very true, and it may mean that the fees average out at £310 or so, but then how many third party vehicles will erroneously taken control of in a debtor's absence, when the house is a terrace with no drive?

[avfc1]

The duty & onus is entirely on the EA to ascertain ownership of a vehicle before removing. Any such removal will be 100% illegal. This extends to a car sitting on the debtors drive that belongs to his wife/her husband.

 

 

I know there is a thread regarding a failed claim and costs awarded from yesterday but third parties should not be associated with this-If your car is illegally removed or interfered with, you are fully entitled to issue court proceedings.

 

 

I honestly feel that people are worrying far too much about the illegal interference of 3rd party goods. "Sorry guv we made a mistake-Honest" will not be an acceptable defence.

[brassnecked]

The duty & onus is entirely on the EA to ascertain ownership of a vehicle before removing. Any such removal will be 100% illegal. This extends to a car sitting on the debtors drive that belongs to his wife/her husband.

 

 

I know there is a thread regarding a failed claim and costs awarded from yesterday but third parties should not be associated with this-If your car is illegally removed or interfered with, you are fully entitled to issue court proceedings.

 

 

I honestly feel that people are worrying far too much about the illegal interference of 3rd party goods. "Sorry guv we made a mistake-Honest" will not be an acceptable defence.

Depends whetherf the EA and creditor decide to push for interpleader as vehicle was bought a couple of weeks before, and third party offers receipt and insurance cert, but as DVLA not changed keeper they still push for interpleader that third party cannot afford as in value of car plus all fees to be paid in.

[avfc1]

Whilst there is no harm whatsoever in a DVLA check, the "Registered Keeper" has no impact whatsoever on who owns the vehicle. I believe DVLA checks are no longer instantaneous in any case so if an EA was relying on this, he would need to wait something like 48 hours for the result.

[brassnecked]

Whilst there is no harm whatsoever in a DVLA check, the "Registered Keeper" has no impact whatsoever on who owns the vehicle. I believe DVLA checks are no longer instantaneous in any case so if an EA was relying on this, he would need to wait something like 48 hours for the result.

 

True the keeper is not neccesarily the owner, but EA's tend to rely on it more than they ought to. It just remains to be seen how this all pans out.

[avfc1]

A further point to note (& this is just IMO)

 

 

An EA has other options to take control of goods-A Controlled Goods Agreement surely should be offered before removal? The issue of clamping is now clarified as well so that is another option. Also many creditors insist that their agents give a debtor time to pay before goods are removed.

 

 

If an EA ignores all this and fast tracks to the removal stage, there can be little sympathy for him/her if he/she gets it wrong. After all, the purpose of these visits is surely to ascertain fundamental facts? What about if the car belonged to a nurse or doctor who was on an "emergency call out" shift?

 

 

Yes we're all speculating at this stage but I'm not as concerned as many regarding wrongful interference with 3rd party goods.

[lamma]

Media coverage that I have seen and heard has been woefully wrong, including the BBC.

[brassnecked]

The media seem to be crowing about it as a victory for hard pressed debtors with no money, when in reality the bailiff, oops Enforcement Agent wins more in the deal.

[Deadwood]

I agree, the establishment wins again. I don't think being able to enforce on Sundays is right, not because I'm religious but at least there's a day when debtors many of whom are mentally ill, can at least have the pressure taken off and enjoy some time with the family.