Seven councils see benefit of in house Enforcement

[brassnecked]

These documents are very worrying indeed as it is clear that the reason for seeking to bring bailiff enforcement in-house is for financial gain and is being dressed up as being to assist debtors.

 

My personal opinion is that local authorities can see the 'writing on the wall' early in the new year with the Reverend Paul Nicolson's Judicial Review and know that the days of charging huge summons (and Liability Order costs) is coming to an end and they need an alternative revenue stream. They believe that bringing bailiff enforcement in-house might just plug the gap. If they really wanted to assist the debtor then this can be achieved immediately by reducing the summons costs to the same as that being charged in Wales....£75.

 

Adult over 25 £72.40 Couple £113.70 on JSA/ESA?Income Support, percentage payment of council tax 10% due to reduction in Council Tax Support, on say 1,500 pa -- 150 to pay, or three quid a week factor in any £18 Bedroom Tax shortfalls to be paid, and other encroachments into their beneits, once council go for LO, and send the in house bailiffs they have just set up to make those potentially unlawful surpluses on Enforcement, rather than an attachment to benefit they will look very nasty indeed if that scenario hit the national press.

 

So your point is absolutely sound, how will enforcing for profit by a council actually help a debtor pay up? It won't it makes things much much worse for them.

[outlawla]

These documents are very worrying indeed as it is clear that the reason for seeking to bring bailiff enforcement in-house is for financial gain and is being dressed up as being to assist debtors.

 

Completely agree! It's all about making money and especially now the Tory government is putting pressure on councils to make up the shortfall created by the massively reduced funding. Ironically the government boasts about how it has kept council tax frozen (or at least to minimal increases) but keeps quite about all the creative ways local authorities have resorted to plug the gap with increased charges and penalties.

 

My personal opinion is that local authorities can see the 'writing on the wall' early in the new year with the Reverend Paul Nicolson's Judicial Review and know that the days of charging huge summons (and Liability Order costs) is coming to an end and they need an alternative revenue stream. They believe that bringing bailiff enforcement in-house might just plug the gap. If they really wanted to assist the debtor then this can be achieved immediately by reducing the summons costs to the same as that being charged in Wales....£75.

 

On the issue of court costs I notice the figure you quote is £75 for Wales. I understood that up until recently the cap was £70 but know that Welsh local authorities have requested that the cap is reviewed as a matter of priority. Has this already happened?

 

This is a quote from Monmouthshire Council:

 

£70 is the maximum amount of summons costs - agreed by Welsh Government a few years ago. Local authorities in Wales feel that...maximum costs should be reviewed on a regular basis and uplifted at least in line with inflation. L.A's have therefore requested that Welsh Government review this limit as a matter of priority.

Presently with there being no statutory limit in England, court costs are challengeable (at least theoretically), so anyone is entitled to put their case before the bench at a liability order hearing. If a cap was introduced – although the reasonableness would still be challengeable – the average intelligence of council officials and HMCTS personnel involved wouldn't extend to understanding that such a cap would be no more than a statutory limit (therefore still challengeable), and would cite regulations wrongly (but successfully) to discredit the legitimacy of anyone's challenge to the level.

 

Many local authorities have massively increased costs over recent years and even the Welsh cap at £70 (75) is proportionately high compared with what most councils imposed a year or two ago. Haringey council's, along with others' costs are exceptionally extortionate but there are still some which have standard costs below the Welsh limit. Inevitably those councils would immediately increase up to the statutory limit.

 

Unless a cap was introduced in England which accurately reflected the costs "reasonably incurred" (they would never do this) then it could be just handing it on a plate for local authorities and Magistrates' courts to get away with what they do. The scope for the taxpayer to contest the costs would almost completely be lost.

 

Another matter which is not unlikely is that the regulation relevant to costs is ultra vires.

[brassnecked]

@ Outlawla, remember that the cap in Wales is as near as dammit a weeks JSA/ESA etc for a single person over 25, and more than the disposible income left for some working families also. I heard murmurings from one council official that they would like the cap to rise to £100, or £125 or so, to help "cover costs" the cretin.

[Bailiff Advice]

Outlawla.

 

Excellent post as always. My error....the summons cost for Wales is £70 and not £75.

 

I was reading one of the annexes last night and very concerned to see the council state that they will send the letters (thereby generating the £75 fee) and that if the debtors fails to pay that the case could be referred to an 'external ' bailiff company. I do not like this one bit at all.

 

There are also serious flaws with councils undertaking in house enforcement and charging the fees as outlined in the regs. I will post back further later today with reasons.

 

One potential flaw is this:

 

Bailiff co sends a Notice of Enforcement. Fee of £75 is charged.

 

Debtor fails to pay or make a payment arrangement.

 

Debt is passed to an individual bailiff and an 'enforcement fee' of £235 is charged.

 

Debtor refuses to engage with bailiff and has no goods or even a car.

 

Further letters are sent by bailiff inviting repayment proposals but no progress made.

 

Attachment of Earnings Order cannot be made by Bailiff co (as the Contractor) as debtor is self employed.

 

Bailiff company voluntarily return the case back to the local authority.

 

The bailiff fees are removed. The account reverts back to the amount due to the local authority under the LO.

 

Local Authority may then consider other means to enforce the debt (including the threat of committal).

 

Taking the above scenario, the query that I have is what would be the position if the local authority bailiffs were involved? Instead of voluntarily returning the debt back to the local authority (and the fees dying) the bailiff is simple passing the account across the desk to an assistant and how will anyone be able to monitor whether the fees have been removed or not?

[outlawla]

Taking the above scenario, the query that I have is what would be the position if the local authority bailiffs were involved? Instead of voluntarily returning the debt back to the local authority (and the fees dying) the bailiff is simple passing the account across the desk to an assistant and how will anyone be able to monitor whether the fees have been removed or not?

 

Probably the local authority would add all the accruing fees to the debtor's account and never remove them. They would probably not be kept separate either thus giving the potential for future debtor's payments to be wrongly allocated to the previous year's account with the consequence of that putting the debtor in arrears all over again and the cycle continuing for ever......

[brassnecked]

Probably the local authority would add all the accruing fees to the debtor's account and never remove them. They would probably not be kept separate either thus giving the potential for future debtor's payments to be wrongly allocated to the previous year's account with the consequence of that putting the debtor in arrears all over again and the cycle continuing for ever......

That is the most likely scenario here, the council will keep the fees on whatever, even if they would have otherwise died with an external bailiff.