Vulnerability, Bailiff Enforcement and the TCE 2007

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

No mm, quote legislation please, not another random advice guide.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It doesn't Grumpy its nonsense.

 

Yep, I know, I'm just getting sucked in. Lol.

 

I'm going to ignore the points mikeymack is now making as im bored.

[mikeymack2002]

No mm, quote legislation please, not another random advice guide.

 

 

So you are saying that the advice from the CAB is random? how so, that is rather nice of you

[mikeymack2002]

This quote is taken from here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bailiffs-and-enforcement-agents-national-standards

 

 

Vulnerable situations

70. Enforcement agents/agencies and creditors must recognise that they each have a role in ensuring that the vulnerable and socially excluded are protected and that the recovery process includes procedures agreed between the agent/agency and creditor about how such situations should be dealt with. The appropriate use of discretion is essential in every case and no amount of guidance could cover every situation. Therefore the agent has a duty to contact the creditor and report the circumstances in situations where there is evidence of a potential cause for concern.

71. If necessary, the enforcement agent will advise the creditor if further action is appropriate. The exercise of appropriate discretion is needed, not only to protect the debtor, but also the enforcement agent who should avoid taking action which could lead to accusations of inappropriate behaviour.

72. Enforcement agents must withdraw from domestic premises if the only person present is, or appears to be, under the age of 16 or is deemed to be vulnerable by the enforcement agent; they can ask when the debtor will be home - if appropriate.

Like I said either way the EA and the debtor can state a vulnerability

76. Enforcement agents should be aware that vulnerability may not be immediately obvious.

[Peterbard]

Yep, I know, I'm just getting sucked in. Lol.

 

I'm going to ignore the points mikeymack is now making as im bored.

 

Yes but please do not stop contributing as a working EA your first hand real life experience is invaluable.

[mikeymack2002]

Post #79 is the legislation you asked for so lets continue with these points or are you going to state this is wrong too?

[Peterbard]

Does anyone have any information regarding the training requirements that are to be introduced for ea's?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I couldn't tell you what the training requirements or even there are any official requiremens, but on the course(in house but ran by a trainer) we went through vulnerable situations, how to spot, how to report, who to report to, relevant paperwork dependant on the situation etc. There was no prescribed course that I saw.

We have plenty of paperwork to guide us, none of which I'm willing to post up as its company specific, but essentially a paper trail of instruction by the company on the way to do it by the book.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes but please do not stop contributing as a working EA your first hand real life experience is invaluable.

 

I dont mind sticking around.

[Peterbard]

I couldn't tell you what the training requirements or even there are any official requiremens, but on the course(in house but ran by a trainer) we went through vulnerable situations, how to spot, how to report, who to report to, relevant paperwork dependant on the situation etc. There was no prescribed course that I saw.

We have plenty of paperwork to guide us, none of which I'm willing to post up as its company specific, but essentially a paper trail of instruction by the company on the way to do it by the book.

 

Yes I just did a google search and there seem to be a number of companies offering vulnerability training to EAs , most state that they are CIVEA endorsed, so it must be a pretty informal arrangement I am guessing.

[ploddertom]

Post #79 is the legislation you asked for so lets continue with these points or are you going to state this is wrong too?

 

 

That is not Legislation. The National Standards are only guidelines and not a legal requirement. Like all things the Government has shied away from what should be their responsibilities. I could be taken as a classic example, to look at I appear perfectly fit and healthy whereas in actual fact the opposite is true. Can I back it up, strangely enough yes but I doubt any Enforcement Agent would understand the cards I carry notr I doubt would any creditor unless they enquired of the phone numbers given & as it is not a medical emergency would suspect they may be told where to go as that is what they are for.

[brassnecked]

That is not Legislation. The National Standards are only guidelines and not a legal requirement. Like all things the Government has shied away from what should be their responsibilities. I could be taken as a classic example, to look at I appear perfectly fit and healthy whereas in actual fact the opposite is true. Can I back it up, strangely enough yes but I doubt any Enforcement Agent would understand the cards I carry notr I doubt would any creditor unless they enquired of the phone numbers given & as it is not a medical emergency would suspect they may be told where to go as that is what they are for.

Until a vulberable debtor dies, as a direct result of an EA ignoring signs of, and all evidence nothing will be done, the guidelines are just that, a guide with no force of law.

[Peterbard]

Even the guidance(which was in post 5) it does not say that the EA must believe the debtor in any case, it is very woolly on the subject in my opinion.

 

Looking at the other side of this though, the enforcment will be the last stage(usually) in a long process, in the case of a fine for instance there will be quite a period between the offence and the compliance letter from the EA, and in between there would have been the reduced offer of settlement in motoring offences the summons the notifications and further steps letters, at any stage the debtor could have pleaded vulnerability, it is perhaps understandable that the debtor should have to satisfy the EA of the truth of their condition and not that it is just a story brought about by the shock of the bailiff action and perhaps ill conceived advice form some FMOTL website.

 

Perhaps on all these preceding letters and notices there should be a statutory requirement to inquire on the debtors status regarding vulnerability.

[mikeymack2002]

Surely with all the cross data processing this could be easily solved? DWP talk to the LA for HB/CT and then you have the blue badge Dep't talk with the DLA so the LA should in all reality have all the information they need to assess before it goes for enforcement? Just a thought here. Then there is the national bus scheme on top of that so any ideas why this data can not be compiled in a better manner?

 

 

This way should someone slip through the net it can easily be picked up by the cross matching process? Just an observation that is all!

[brassnecked]

Problem is DB with Council Tax the council will often be aware of the families circumstances in many cases as there will be live Housing benefit/Council Tax relief in payment, along with maybe a Social; Services involvement. and a note on the account that person suffers from whatever debiltating illness that would render them vulnerable. But they will still go for the LO and send in the bailiffs

 

Agree MM there should be cross referencing, but in a Crapita infested council it would hit their bottom line along with their in house attack dogs Equita and Ross 'n Robber's profits., so they would likely ignore.

[ploddertom]

 

Perhaps on all these preceding letters and notices there should be a statutory requirement to inquire on the debtors status regarding vulnerability.

 

 

The nature of the beast means the majority will be ignored and go unanswered. There is no easy way round this bar what we have now and many EAs just ignore any vulnerability issues they come across as it means they lose money. The whole system needs further change and until we get politicians who live in the real world I doubt it will always be a botch job.

[brassnecked]

Have to agree PT there is no will from the politicians to do any root and branch reform, so they will tinker, and claim to learn lessons when a vulnerable debtor dies, or is killed when a bailiff barges in, and knocks the debtor over, who then bangs their head on the wall and dies.as a direct result. or a child in arms is knocked out of the mothers arms and is injured or killed, when the EA goes in hard for that TV License fine. Police will sweep it under the carpet as an accident.

[mikeymack2002]

DB... given what has been stated on this and other threads are you suggesting a central database for this type of information, which could include the main players like dwp hmrc the LA and why not add the Court service as well then most of the departments will be covered and be readily accessible to each and everyone of them? Why not include the NHS as well that way all records could be searched and a full picture given? Finally adding the DVLA so that they can sell the information for a quick buck for parking enforcement.

 

 

This will allow the EA access to see if you really are ill or have a car they can take control of or the LA issuing a recovery order to be directly deducted from your benefits or salary.....

 

 

PS: BN summed it up perfectly

[Peterbard]

DB... given what has been stated on this and other threads are you suggesting a central database for this type of information, which could include the main players like dwp hmrc the LA and why not add the Court service as well then most of the departments will be covered and be readily accessible to each and everyone of them? Why not include the NHS as well that way all records could be searched and a full picture given? Finally adding the DVLA so that they can sell the information for a quick buck for parking enforcement.

 

 

This will allow the EA access to see if you really are ill or have a car they can take control of or the LA issuing a recovery order to be directly deducted from your benefits or salary.....

 

 

PS: BN summed it up perfectly

 

Personally all that personal data floating around seems a bit Orwellian to me . A simpler solution would be for the debtor to get a note form a health professional and present it before the bailiff called of course.

 

But this thread is not about that in any case it is about how the act works and what happens now and in the real world, and more importantly what advice to give to people who are genuinely vulnerable and have bailiffs knocking on the door.

[brassnecked]

Personally all that personal data floating around seems a bit Orwellian to me . A simpler solution would be for the debtor to get a note form a health professional and present it before the bailiff called of course.

 

But this thread is not about that in any case it is about how the act works and what happens now and in the real world, and more importantly what advice to give to people who are genuinely vulnerable and have bailiffs knocking on the door.

 

Looks like Early engagement at Compliance stage as advised, of course there seems to be a pattern whereby all offers are refused to enable the Enforcement Fee to be added. In cases of potential or actual vulnerability evidence needs to be given at the earliest stage, as in at Compliance Stage of before if the debtor has had a summons for a LO, or a court summons. Provide evidence of the vulnerability at the earliest possible stage, as in a letter from a HC professional, an award notice for DLA/PIP/ESA, anything that can show the EA and creditor that the person should be dealt with under the National Guidelines.

 

Of course even with all the evidence it is down to the EA whether they accept it so all in all the vulnerable debtor is usually screwed.

 

So car clamped, cancer patient waves appointment card for that day for hospital, EA will likely tell them to get the bus. I feel in all likelihood a Jacobs EA definitely would. tell someone with an urgent hospital appointment for an ongoing illness to get the bus.

[mikeymack2002]

Orwellian seriously

 

 

That answer is very simple is it not? According to posts earlier in this thread the only person that is allowed to make this judgement call is the recently trained EA.! According to the standards at the beginning of the posts say one thing this in turn is then read to suit the situation. If the EA decides to ignore the guidelines then whatever action they take will be the ultimate responsibility of the creditor.

 

 

Lets look at this a different way for a moment, sometimes the first thing a debtor knows of the debt is when an EA comes knocking, this has been talked about on this forum many a time recently. Say for instance the debtor knows that there is an EA coming within 7 days, they have an disability that makes it hard for them to get out and about, they manage to make an appointment with their GP and attend it lets say within 2 days (because the Dr is busy) They ask the busy GP to write a letter confirming what their medical issues are. The Dr's PA takes 2 days to write the letter and is mailed to the patient within 2 days.

 

 

The patient duly receives it at day 6 phew I got it in time they say. Great day 7 arrives 10:30 the EA arrives smiling because the weather is fine and they are about to do business..... Being polite the EA gently knocks on the door and waits patiently for the resident to open it to them. Great the resident is in. Now after all the running around that the debtor has done and smiling produces the letter from the GP on Printed headed note paper and signed by the GP and witnessed by the PA.

 

 

The debtor smiles back at the EA and hands them the letter that has taken a week and much distress to obtain, only for the EA to say "sorry I don't believe you or the contents of this letter simply because I have that right to believe this does not show a true reflection of a vulnerability because I was trained by someone at my office last week and I am experienced in being able to tell if someone is lying to me!!"

 

 

I admire your thoughts in the way you hoped this thread would go but it must be said and has been by an EA that they have the ultimate call on what is classed as a vulnerability and that is their final word! Some EA's actually do a better job some don't, so all of this is actually a discussion that can only be fixed by those that make the laws in the first place. So the answer to your question in the first post is speak to the creditor as soon as there is an issue to try to resolve it before it goes to Court. If you cannot sort it out then the EA will attend regardless as to what is discussed here.

 

 

An after thought here when someone applies for any form of benefit there is normally a large box to add any further information that maybe relevant, the claimant duly fills this in with a good medical disclosure, they still manage to fall in to arrears because the claim took so long to be entered on to the system and actioned. Would this information be taken in to account who knows?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

You are all slamming the EA's as ruthless **** that dont give a **** and thats a bit pathetic if you ask me. Sorry for that language.

The problem is most of you think that we see a vulnerable person as an easy target. We dont. If we enforce, and it backfires, the company will/may lose a contract, the EA may/will lose hos certificate and the claimant gets a whole heap of bad pr.

Its very very rate a genuine vuln claim comes in and when it does, we treat them with the respect and diligence they deserve. We ask for proof and then await clients comments.

Why do we ask for proof? Because we get lied to day in day out.

 

Anybody want to know how I got on earlier with my pregnant debtor? The debtor owned the car. The pregnant girl was the debtors sister. She showed the pregnacy file and tried to do so hiding the name.

 

Those of you with your perfect system of Orwellian checks, you can think again. You cant even get one system to talk to itself(dvla for instance) so what do you think the chances of ten or 15 systems talking is. And what about data protection? I dont want every tom dick and harry knowing my medical history? Would you be happy with anybody just viewing you medical history? No, I thought not.

 

As a whole, the EA is becoming more civilised in that we are looking for vulnerable debtors and helping them put their claim forward. But essentially, they have to claim to be vulnerable of ita not immediately obvious.

 

At least in its current form the ea will be punished if caught enforcing against someone who he knows to be vulnerable, bit...if he is not told, and it layer transpires that the defendant is vulnerable, how can the be the fault of the EA? Its not.

 

Again, there are different stages to the vulnerability.

Unemployed, vulnerable but should it stop enforcement? Some of you say yes. So that means that every unemployed person can run up debts, be it civil and criminal debt, and not have to pay it...ever?

What about recently bereaved? 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, or is it up to the debtor? What about if you call the day after a debtors father has died. He says its fine, it was expected and they are perfectly happy to deal with this now and offer payment in full. The EA collects and the debtor then hangs himself that night? Is that the EA's fault?

How about quadriplegic and unable to talk. He does however have the ability to use a finger pad and can electronically speak. He says he wishes to pay and tenders a cheque and offer to enter into a controlled goods agreement signed by his son who he has given permission to to sign the paperwork. Is he vulnerable? If I say to him are you vulnerable, am I going to hear yea, or am I going to get an ear bashing from someone that considers himself as not vulnerable and insulted that just because he is quadriplegic I assume he is vulnerable?

 

There are millions of scenarios and we do our best not to cause offence OR enforce against someone that is genuinely vulnerable, bit at the end of the day, we are not doctors, we are not social workers we are bailiffs.

 

Using tunnel vision to look at a subject like this will never work. You have to view the broader issue which is that we get lied to about things like this just to avoid paying debts.

 

Hell of a rant I know, nit alot of you seem to think this is an easy issue to solve, when in reality its a seriously difficult one to solve.

 

If a cancer patients car is clamped and he has an appointment card and shows it to the EA, any one of my guys or girls would lose their job if they lifted that car or didn't unclamp it sharpish. Possibly even their certificate if it went to an eac2 complaint.

 

Also, had a single mum with a child today. No job. No family. but no benefits either. Has plenty of money. Is she vulnerable? Falls into two possible vuln categories there but not really vulnerable is she?

 

Sorry for the bad spelling. Fat fingers on a little phone.

[mikeymack2002]

Grumpy you are almost halfway there you can confirm to the forum or just to yourself some of the EA's can and do lie, this fact has been proven.

 

 

An EA was sentenced to 10 months recently for being naughty with money and the truth.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440526-Bailiff-Pleads-Guilty-to-Fraud-and-Jailed-for-10-months

 

 

People make mistakes, some people lie because we are human after all, but as a fellow human would it not be best to allow a debtor to pay the debt off at an affordable level over time? why because we are in a recession no spare cash.

[mikeymack2002]

Here is another perspective for the EA;s (or some of them) a debtor has all their medical files to hand and can produce them straight away. Say one has a blue badge as well, but this is in the car that belongs to the carer that transports them around so it is not "lost" they can produce a letter from the DLA/DWP/LA national bus scheme. Would you believe they are "vulnerable"? maybe/not, that is your call.

 

 

But at the end of the day the person that has to live with their disabilities and the effects it has on them could be hidden from view to you. I.E. they have a serious brain injury or heart condition, just like the story I mentioned earlier, on the outside to you they "look normal" but on the inside they are not, from this you can deduce as you see fit, to give you an example again,

 

 

A debtor has had a massive stroke, but has no outward signs like the dropped face and so on but has a VP shunt fitted in their brain, but again this is not visible is it? what I am saying grumpy is that every time you walk to a different property to carry out your duties you really should be thinking that everyone is DIFFERENT. You have the hard job on deciding if they are telling the truth, so why not think along the lines of "what if they ARE telling the truth" What if I make the mistake of not believing the reasons the debtor has given? Why not pass that buck back to the creditor and let THEM make your choice for you? This is the safest option open to you is it not?

 

 

I am just thinking out aloud here ok here is a thought for you...... As an EA you have to get your job right EVERY SINGLE time what if you got it wrong just once because the public has lied to you in the past and you thought this was the case every time you knocked on a debtors door. Are you really prepared to take this risk each time you knock on a door to enforce your warrant of control?

 

 

IF in doubt why not just pass it back to let them make the tuff decision for you? This way you still get to catch them at a later date in other words it is better to be safe rather than sorry is it not?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Grumpy you are almost halfway there you can confirm to the forum or just to yourself some of the EA's can and do lie, this fact has been proven.

 

 

An EA was sentenced to 10 months recently for being naughty with money and the truth.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440526-Bailiff-Pleads-Guilty-to-Fraud-and-Jailed-for-10-months

 

 

People make mistakes, some people lie because we are human after all, but as a fellow human would it not be best to allow a debtor to pay the debt off at an affordable level over time? why because we are in a recession no spare cash.

 

Have you read the comments? have you seen that i commented? Thought not.