Vulnerability, Bailiff Enforcement and the TCE 2007

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

This is the last ill respond to these questions.

Please post a copy of the response you get from the courts if you will mm. And not type it, post a .pdf if you are able to please.

If there is anything of note in there, then ill discuss it then.

 

GTSTL

[mikeymack2002]

I have done so many times already and currently writing a reply. This one has a few questions and thoughts that have been put together better I hope that will follow shortly or tomorrow.

 

 

But this one for starters, Grumpy does the fact that some debtors lie to you make your job harder, then when a genuine case come before you does this make your job harder to do in this case, because you have heard so many lies so many times in the past?

 

 

Would you be prepared to tell us what you do or did in this/that situation, it would then show how the EA does in fact change to the circumstances? Like you mentioned some post ago about a patient.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

 

 

But this one for starters, Grumpy does the fact that some debtors lie to you make your job harder, then when a genuine case come before you does this make your job harder to do in this case, because you have heard so many lies so many times in the past?

 

 

Would you be prepared to tell us what you do or did in this/that situation, it would then show how the EA does in fact change to the circumstances? Like you mentioned some post ago about a patient.

 

Ok, I'll bite for a little longer.

 

 

No, every job is started with an open mind. Its fairly easy to spot someone telling a lie so you don't need to go in like a bull in a china shop.

 

You go in purely on a basis of they haven't paid a debt, they have been judged to be owing that debt, and the court has awarded the power to me to go and collect that debt.

If there are no violence or vulnerability warnings, you go in with an open mind.

 

Yea, I dont mind answering factual questions based on assumptions of what could happen.

If I see any see anything that obviously stands out as impossible or downright ludicrous, ill be out of here faster than a bailiff meeting a 12 year old at a debtors property.

[mikeymack2002]

I thank you for your openness, as to one of your points which I would have asked is in my work in progress response, this is one of the questions I was preparing to ask you, with just a little bit more involved in the question so I will complete it now.

 

 

Do you think more could be done to inform the EA that there is or could be a vulnerability? if so what would you recommend as a course of action that would then make your job easier for that particular (type) debtor?

 

 

As an extra part can you see that in the future because you are involved with the likes of a LA and they have had no real contact whatsoever with the debtor (hence the debt) and have no clue there is something wrong in the first place, then you as EA can see what they cannot? Simply put you have found something they were totally unaware of because no one knew anything of this situation until now? When you found it

[Peterbard]

HI grumpy glad to se yo stil contributing and yes I did post the legislation in the first post so I did not think MM was asking about it and what it contained to be honest, and really he wasn't in any case, the question was more about what right the EA had to judge the debtor, the answer to that is of course the warrant. But I think his real purpose is to disrupt this thread, and get it closed down.

 

However I have a question. How has the job changed since April in this respect, do EAs get more information from the creditor regarding high risk debtors, and do you get more people claiming vulnerability when really none exists, or is it just the same as before.

[mikeymack2002]

DB what is this "But I think his real purpose is to disrupt this thread, and get it closed down." Again more assumptions that are uncalled for

 

 

I have an avid and personal interest in getting all the input I can, I have no need or want to have this thread closed.

 

 

Secondly DB you are again incorrect with your assumptions. my question has always been what right has an EA to determine whether or not a debtor is/not vulnerable nothing more nothing less

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

I thank you for your openness, as to one of your points which I would have asked is in my work in progress response, this is one of the questions I was preparing to ask you, with just a little bit more involved in the question so I will complete it now.

 

 

Do you think more could be done to inform the EA that there is or could be a vulnerability? if so what would you recommend as a course of action that would then make your job easier for that particular (type) debtor?

 

 

As an extra part can you see that in the future because you are involved with the likes of a LA and they have had no real contact whatsoever with the debtor (hence the debt) and have no clue there is something wrong in the first place, then you as EA can see what they cannot? Simply put you have found something they were totally unaware of because no one knew anything of this situation until now? When you found it

 

There is always room for improvement.

Systems that talk to each other would help.

 

Absolutely. Some people only come to light as vulnerable when we visit. For instance a death the day before of a loved one would make them vulnerable. The client, whether its a LA or not would be advised of this and we would suggest putting the file on hold. A follow up visit treading carefully some weeks /months later.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

HI grumpy glad to se yo stil contributing and yes I did post the legislation in the first post so I did not think MM was asking about it and what it contained to be honest, and really he wasn't in any case, the question was more about what right the EA had to judge the debtor, the answer to that is of course the warrant. But I think his real purpose is to disrupt this thread, and get it closed down.

 

However I have a question. How has the job changed since April in this respect, do EAs get more information from the creditor regarding high risk debtors, and do you get more people claiming vulnerability when really none exists, or is it just the same as before.

Yes I understand that its not quote what he wishes to hear but it does show that the powers that be expect us to attempt to determine if a defendant is vulnerable.

But but yes, the warrant essentially gives is the means to ask them to prove to us there is an issue much in the same way as proof of ownership.

 

In all honesty, a vuln case is rare so I cant say that I have seen a rise in notifications from clients, but certainly the average EA on the road is getting more claims and acting on them.

[Peterbard]

 

 

Secondly DB you are again incorrect with your assumptions. my question has always been what right has an EA to determine whether or not a debtor is/not vulnerable nothing more nothing less

 

If this is your question then PT response did not answer it, the question PT answered was, what criteria does the EA adopt when making his decision and is this in the legislation.

 

YOU are asking what right the ea has to decide, in other words what empowers him to be able to make the decision, implying that he does not have the right, to over-rule a doctor etc as you put it. This question is inane and it is why you did not get an answer and why you changed it.

[Peterbard]

Yes I understand that its not quote what he wishes to hear but it does show that the powers that be expect us to attempt to determine if a defendant is vulnerable.

But but yes, the warrant essentially gives is the means to ask them to prove to us there is an issue much in the same way as proof of ownership.

 

In all honesty, a vuln case is rare so I cant say that I have seen a rise in notifications from clients, but certainly the average EA on the road is getting more claims and acting on them.

 

That is interesting and a little worrying, everyone's first port of call these days is the internet when they get the bailiffs letter, and much advice seems to be to claim vulnerability even if it is not the debtor who has the problem.

 

The worry of course is that bailiffs will get so many of these that they will miss a genuine case(the boy who cried wolf syndrome)

Edited March 8, 2015 by Dodgeball
spell

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes, and that is a very big worry at the moment and its happening already.

[Peterbard]

Yes, and that is a very big worry at the moment and its happening already.

 

Unfortunately this kind of thing is not limited to bailiff enforcement, the same has happened in consumer credit and land (homeowner) purchase legislation. Measures introduced to protect debtors/consumers, are exploited by certain sections who seek to use the letter of the legislation(or interpretation thereof) to get out of payment. In the case of the consumer credit act it resulted in the measures being withdrawn altogether.

 

Hopefully in this case, the amended guidelines promised will tighten up the procedure, although personally I think that an addition to secondary legislation will be needed to protect debtor creditor and EA alike

[dx100uk]

can all you knowledgeable people p'haps start helping with the threads of members in this forum please

 

 

rather than continually spending your time in 'discussion'

 

 

there are several threads here that myself and others are 'guessing on' and need expert help.

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?442325-Can-the-council-be-trusted-and-drop-summons

 

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?442459-marston-baliffs-ive-recived-a-letter-.(1-Viewing)-nbsp

 

 

 

 

 

 

dx

[Peterbard]

Hi

 

Just received a response from MY FOI request regarding this issue you can see it here, the file is to big to go on here, on first sight the measures seems to be quite comprehensive.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vulnerability_provisions_regardi

 

Dear Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council,

 

Following the introduction of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement

regime for the collection of council tax arrears last April can you

please tell me;

 

What measures have the authority taken to comply with the National

standards requirement for a system to be implemented regrading the

enforcment of accounts belonging to vulnerable debtors.

 

Could you please show any guidance issued to staff or EA by the

authority in relation to the handling of vulnerable debtors.

 

Could you please tell me how many accounts have been taken back

form enforcment agents upon discovery of the vulnerable stratus of

the debtor since last April.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

david browning

[brassnecked]

Excellent respose to the FOI by Tameside, only fly seems to be they rely on the EA's opinion a little too much possibly.

[Peterbard]

Yes quite impressed, there seems to be certain situations which would automatically be classed as vulnerable, heavily pregnant women, people in mourning etc.

 

Also 167 cases returned last year

[brassnecked]

Yes quite impressed, there seems to be certain situations which would automatically be classed as vulnerable, heavily pregnant women, people in mourning etc.

 

Also 167 cases returned last year

It is to be hoped their EA's follow these guidelines and inform their employer of these vulnerable debtors, as often even with a heavy late stage pregnancy they blunder on enforcing hard without telling the council.

[ploddertom]

We have seen on this Forum alone a few posts over the last few days whereby you would think the debtor would be automatically realised as being vulnerable. Maybe it is coincidence but they are all to do with Rossendales and therefore begs the question are their Agents up to speed over vulnerability issues are just blinded by the appearance of ££ signs. Marstons may well have taken over a few different companies of late but there standard of operations seems to fall well short of what should be expected. I certainly hope the MOJ reads some of these threads and that each OP should also send a complaint over their treatment to them. After all what is the point of guidelines when some are just plainly ignoring them.

[brassnecked]

PT, it would seem that Rossendales have reverted to type, as in grasping bully bailiffs and will dismiss vulnerability as it prevents them applying more pressure and unaffordable agreements that set the debtor up to fail.

 

MOJ should investigate Rossers and their parent Marstons as a matter of urgency.

[ploddertom]

It does appear they learned nothing from the Mr Boast era.

[brassnecked]

It does appear they learned nothing from the Mr Boast era.

 

They must have worked overtime as to how they could use their old methods under the new rules with no chance of being taken to task. The new Obstruction offence will be the next piece they will utilise with impunity.as in Let me in or I will report you to plod for obstructing my attempt to push past you into your home.

[ploddertom]

 

The new Obstruction offence will be the next piece they will utilise with impunity.as in Let me in or I will report you to plod for obstructing my attempt to push past you into your home.

 

 

Think there are some who are already doing this and like everything HM Constabulary are complying without any real investigation as to whether or not they should be. I'm sure I've seen somewhere a document one of the Enforcement Cos has produced to give to Police. Sounds like a similar cause that the Met fell foul of in their Cubo operations.

[brassnecked]

Think there are some who are already doing this and like everything HM Constabulary are complying without any real investigation as to whether or not they should be. I'm sure I've seen somewhere a document one of the Enforcement Cos has produced to give to Police. Sounds like a similar cause that the Met fell foul of in their Cubo operations.

 

I think there is a link on CAG somewhere to that document, what is certain isd that the situation for some under the new regime will be as bads as before, especially if they try to exploit the Obstruction angle, as in EA, we are here to take control of your goods as we didn't consider you offered enough, you should have paid us not your rent at Compliance Stage ., your offer of the entire £50 per week you have left for essentials according to the I&E from your Zero Hours job is insufficient; and only paid £75 fee. Now if you don't let us in to take your goods, we will call the police and have you arrested for the new offence of Obstructing an EA, and by the way you now owe us an extra £235 for the visit and £110 when we take your TV once you let us in"

 

I fear the Boast types will act just like my scenario above. I hope I am wrong.